Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why Do Lies Prevail?

John McCain was not offended when Barack Obama described McCain’s policy agenda as putting “lipstick on a pig.” I can’t prove that, but it seems so obvious to me that it’s more like a fact than an opinion. Nor could McCain possibly have thought that Obama was calling McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, a pig, since Obama didn’t even mention Palin. If Obama had even thought that his words would be misinterpreted as calling Palin a pig, he wouldn’t have said them. That also seems obvious. The whole controversy is ginned up, a fraud, a lie. All obvious.

I know that by even bringing this up, I am falling into the trap that McCain’s people have set and perpetuating this ridiculous controversy. But the routine acceptance of obvious lies now corrodes our politics as much as the money that was the subject of McCain’s famous act of Republican apostasy: McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. McCain has described his motive for McCain-Feingold as a giant mea culpa for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. Maybe when this is over, one way or another, McCain will swear off corrupt lying the way he has sworn off corrupt money.

But it shouldn’t be necessary to wait for one of McCain’s conveniently delayed conversions to righteousness. In a democracy, obvious lies and obvious liars should be self-defeating. Why aren’t they?

One reason is that the media have trouble calling a lie a lie, or asserting that one side is lying more than the other -- even when that is objectively the case. They lean over backwards to give liars the benefit of the doubt, even when there is no doubt. Objectivity can’t be objectively measured. What can be is balance. So if the sins of both campaigns are reported as roughly equal, the media feel they are doing their job -- even if this is objectively untrue.

But the bigger reason is that no one -- not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters -- cares enough about lying. To some extent, they even respect a well-told lie as evidence of professionalism. If a candidate complains too much about an opponent’s lies, he or she starts being regarded as a bad sport, a whiner. Stoic silence doesn’t work either. People start asking why you don’t “fight back.” Pretty soon, the victim of the lies starts getting blamed. C’mon: this isn’t paddycakes; politics ain’t beanball; and so on. This happened to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. And it’s already starting to happen to Barack Obama this year.

Sure, if he loses, it will be his fault. Sure, he and everybody ought to know that the Republicans play this game for keeps. But that shouldn’t let John McCain off the hook. He says he’d rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he’d rather lose that honor he’s always going on about than lose the election.

By Michael Kinsley  | September 10, 2008; 9:54 PM ET
Categories:  Kinsley  | Tags:  Michael Kinsley  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Pig Takes the Cake
Next: The Right and Wrong Questions for Palin



Back in May, McCain referred to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan as “putting lipstick on a pig.” It’s still a pig. No one thought anything of it. There were no cries of sexism. No one accused McCain of calling Hillary a pig.

Fast forward a few months and Barack Obama returns the favor. He refers to the McCain campaign’s talk of “change” as nothing but putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. Instantly the McCain camp jumps up and cries foul, accusing Obama of calling Sarah Palin a pig. Never mind that Obama had not even mentioned Palin’s name. Never mind that McCain himself had used that same folksy phrase. They then have the unmitigated gall to demand an apology from Obama. As if McCain owned the copyright to that phrase.

Methinks the Republican candidate doth protest too much.
The intensity of the McCain outcry, apart from its dishonesty, tells me that Obama has accidentally hit a raw nerve. Instead of backing off from that porcine phrase, Obama would be well advised to use it in every campaign speech to characterize the quixotic talk of “change” emanating from the McCain camp. It is a phrase that immediately elicits scorn and derision. It is pithy and memorable. It describes exactly what a McCain presidency would be: four more years of Bush policies prettied up in lipstick. That’s not change. It is still a pig.

But here is the best reason for Obama to keep referring to pigs with lipstick. The insistence by the McCain camp on tying Obama’s innocent phrase to Sarah Palin has now made it impossible for us to NOT think of her when we hear of putting lipstick on a pig. The imagery is powerful. When we think of pigs we see greedy hogs feeding at a trough loaded with earmarks, such as, say dough for a bridge to nowhere. We think of the huge amounts of pork obtained by a small town mayor with connections to the Washington abattoir. No wonder the McCain-Palin camp is scared. Already there are T-shirts out with that wonderful image of a pig with lipstick.

The over-the-top response of McCain in this matter has provided Obama with a golden opportunity. He needs to keep hammering home the message that a McCain presidency would amount to putting lipstick on a pig. He should stick to that imagery for it is one that resonates. If he keeps drumming in that message, the only way the McCain-Palin ticket will win is when pigs fly.

And that’s no (pit)bull.

Posted by: RasKente | September 10, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I for one do not accept lies. From neither party. From neither Presidential candidate. From neither Veep candidate. Not from anyone. Lies are disgraceful and insulting.

Posted by: Mike13 | September 10, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Why Do Lies Prevail?"

Because of hacks like you, Kinsley.

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© | September 10, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

You have got to be kidding.

When Obama paused and then made the "lipstick on a pig" comment, almost the entire audience broke out in a gleeful laughter. Having heard this cliche many times over the years, it is interesting that the audience reacted differently, this time, because they knew full well who it referred to after Palin's comment the other day about pitbull dogs and hockey moms and lipstick.

If you want to know why Obama and the Democrats and and leftwing bloggers keep making stiff up ( lying ), it is because columnists like this lie and lie about the truth.


Posted by: rljmsilver | September 10, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Trying to discern whether or not one side is lying more than the other? Someone needs a reality check.

These are politicians...they all lie.

The problem isn't the media calling a lie a lie, it is the American public (see also: sheeple) who can't get past partisan politics. That is, the average American doesn't care if his/her guy lies, as long as his/her party wins.

Unfortunately, this election is also expanding that absurdity to include race and gender.

Voters should be required to pass a critical thinking test before they can receive a voter's registration card.

Posted by: Pedro | September 10, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

It's true. People can not handle the truth. Even the journalist so I say what they are afraid to say.
RICK DAVIS, McCain's man is controlling the press. He told you the campaign wasn't going to be about issues. What has it been about Oprah and lip stick. And the press just plays along with their behinds up in the air. Can you believe with all the problems in this country that they spent a whole day and a half on lipstick. Rick controls everything about Palin including who she talks too. ABC network went to bed with him for ratings. What good is a bunch of cut up edited tapes spread out over who knows how long. Charlie Gibson already lost his creditability with the Obama interview, but now he has sold his soul to the devil. He's worst than fox news. Its all about control for Rick Davis the real press will never get a chance to interview Palin. Her first real press conference will not take place for months, win or lose because she's not ready for PRIMETIME. She is the biggest sham the republican party has going but more importantly, she's dangerous for the country.

Posted by: PEOPLE WOULD RATHER BELIEVE A LIE THAN BELIEVE THE TRUTH | September 10, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

i agree with rljmsilver that this was a reference to palin, at any rate it looks like the audience thought that's what it was all about.

that said, palin deserves what she gets. and after all, she was the one who called herself a dog in her acceptance speech. i sure hope mccain's campaign continues to pretend to be offended, it's tarnishing their 'real tough guys 'n gals who love shooting guns' image.

seriously, first blaming the media for their own mistakes, now getting all offended because obama made a zinger about their poor sheltered candidate. what a pack of spineless sissies.

Posted by: rugs | September 10, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Open All Seasons: Lies/Subterfuge

It may have started with Bridge, Poker or the Media.
They're the foundation of society.

How was it for you Cheryl?

Posted by: 3rd-Party Advocate | September 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

When the press/media admits to the bias they show to any particular candidate, party, or country then they will be able to level the charge of lying against the offenders. Don't we all hate the lies. McCain -Feingold is a travesty but what does it have to do with this subject?

Posted by: redsknfan | September 10, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

People not only accept lies from politicians, their acolytes promote the lies. Read the post of rljmsilver, a liar speaking the exact, word-for-word talking point produced by McCain to slam Obama. In its own defense, rljmsilver would even lie by claiming to be present, taking the course of the lie to its ultimate extreme. It's people like rljmsilver who are equally at fault as the liars they support.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | September 10, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Only liar here is Kinsley......

Posted by: George Dixon | September 10, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Enough! No Seriously…

The McCain campaign has gone too far. Waking up this morning to hear the news that the McCain campaign is demanding that Obama apologize for using the “lipstick” phrase. The very phrase John McCain has used to describe Hillary Clinton at least twice before. With all the important issues to discuss and debate the McCain campaign has chosen to use Karl Rove style politics-taking the focus off the important issues and changing the storyline to superficial headlines that wont matter after Nov 5th. The American people (no matter who you are voting for) deserve better than this. After seven and a half years of the Bush administration we ARE NOT better off. The American economy is spiraling, what victory in Iraq looks like has yet to be defined, education is not equipped for the challenges of the 21st century and America’s oil dependence needs to be addressed (besides chanting drill baby drill).
We need a clear vision for the future-not sensational sound bytes to feed the inept media machine. The media has failed the American people!
It is now up to US-to DEMAND the McCain campaign focus on the issues and not simplistic distortions and detraction. I use to think that by just voting I was completing my civil duty. But now I realize that I must take the next step-US- the American people have to demand better from the McCain campaign. The media is so interested in ratings it is willing to sacrifice our country.
Now I am just one person. I have never done anything like this before. My suggestion is to organize to show up at McCain rallies/headquarters around the country-wherever he travels- and simply ask for the truth. Peacefully ask him to stop the lies and distortion and focus on the issues. I don’t know what else to do…we need to organize and stop the smears. So if you are fed up too-if you have a better idea.
I have created an email just for this purpose. It is up to US-from the bottom up to organize and demand better. This is the president were talking about…not American idol. It was the Republicans who put us in this mess now- John McCain who agrees with the overwhelming majority of Bush policy-now wants to disown the party?
As a teacher part of my job is to teach accountably. Its time for John McCain to be held accountable for his actions!

If you feel the same or have better ideas email me

Posted by: bizarroworld08 | September 10, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I love how to some cons here it's "obvious that the crowd thought the lipstick reference was to Palin" - LOL
Wow - these guys can read minds? LOL
Fact is that if your side is that sensitive you are in no shape to take on people like Vlad Putin. Face it - Palin is afraid of talking to a reporter - if Osama bin Laden issued a threatening video she'd stand on a chair and scream!

Posted by: Marc Edward | September 10, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Why do lies prevail? I dunno.

Ask David Axelrod and B. Hussein Obama.

Posted by: M Kinsley | September 10, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Obama is going to have to come down off his high horse of principle--do I hear echoes of another professor turned politician, Woodrow Wilson, about being "too proud to fight?"--and fight fire with fire. Obama has to do thia because the politics of smear and fear and hate and lie are threatening to overwhelm our democracy.

It is obvious that McCain's sense of "honor" and "decency" are hollow shams--window-dressing to cover his naked lust for power. Kinsley is absolutely right here, and the press really is at fault for failing to lambast McCain, Palin, and the whole GOP hate machine for their collective descent into the political tactics of Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler.

McCain's opponents have to unleash the heavy artillery. Have the guts to call him a serial liar, and destroy the myth of his honorable character. Remind everyone of the man's disgustingly immorality toward his first wife, and how he ditched her to marry Miss Moneybags from a family in hock to the Mafia. Call him as an incompetent flier in the Navy who crashed five jets because he never bothered to learn the manuals, took crazy risks, and got away with everything because of his family connections. (That included being allowed to stay at Academy despite lousy grades and a horrible conduct record that would have got anyone else expelled.) Yes, say how he cracked at the Hanoi Hilton--which proves, of course, that torture can break anyone, and which also shows what a damned hypocrite he is now to excuse Bush's torture. Bring back the Keating Five, and couple that with the man's long and shameful history of allying himself with the rotten lobbyists--including those who still run his campaign. Hit him for having hired, in 2008, the very same slimeballs who in 2000 slimed him in order to put his new-found friend, Bush, into the White House--what man of honor would do such a thing? How can we trust this country to a man of such slippery conscience?

McCain and his minions and his enablers--including that two-bit hussy of a running mate--are damned liars and have to be exposed. Obama, just tell the truth about these frauds, and pour it on. The truth will set us free.

God help the United States if this kind of Hitler-Goebbels Big Lie politics succeeds once again. ENOUGH!

Posted by: jm917 | September 10, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

When you hate the other side it is easier to accept lies about them than to assess reality with critical thinking skills and figure out the truth. And it is easier to hate when you have been convinced that you are constantly being victimized, be it by your fellow citizens on the other side of the political aisle, by the press, or by some unfamiliar foreign so-called bogeyman.

Posted by: Rodney King | September 10, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

I guess you couldn't figure it out Kinsley. Palin, in her recent speech, made a reference to hockey moms like her wearing lipstick. Five days later, Obama said: "You could put lipstick on a pig and it would still be a pig." It was a kind of Freudian slip and it was probably directed at Palin. McCain several months ago used the same expression to talk about Hillary Clinton's policies. He was probably referring to Hillary herself, but he was a little more artful and original than Obama.

Posted by: ttj | September 10, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

How discouraging! I do not accept lies - but I rely on news media to out the liars. But you may be right - they are reluctant to call a lie a lie outright - and that is truly unfortunate since our main source of information comes from you guys.

The AlQueda link early on in the Iraq war that was perpetrated and repeated ad nauseum by the Bush people and still has some believers. I think the McCain tactics are the same - they simply keep repeating blatant lies and there's not too much anyone can do about it, except that this time, the attacks against Obama are so dirty that some papers and bloggers are highlighting these awful things a bit more. It is impossible also to rely on the good sense and judgment of the electorate - they are so fickle and so easily seduced by a new face. For me and many others, winning this election is of paramount importance - the introduction of Sarah Palin makes it doubly so.

Posted by: jblee | September 10, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a liar. Ipso facto, he is a dishonrable man, willing to do "whatever it takes" to get whatever he wants.

He will bring in an era of change, all right. Picture the White House as Tammany Hall.

Posted by: Tim Connor | September 10, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Kinsley's observations are right on-- call it the Fox News effect, which has imposed a phony balance, a false moral equivalency, that any lie will be tolerated as long as both sides get to have their say for a more or less equal amount of time (although the conservative guest always is permitted to talk first and last in order to frame the issue and then close the deal).

The cable media adopted the Fox model to keep up with their ratings growth and now these practices have bled over into print journalism.

This silliness has gotten to the point that we no longer deserve to be called a democracy.

Posted by: Skye | September 11, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

The McCain campaign's message of "change" is just putting LIPSTICK ON A PIG.

That is all Americans need to know.

Memo to Republicans: No one's buying your B.S. this year. But keep lying, as*holes; it's your birth right.

Posted by: God | September 11, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Cindy is pregnant.

Sounds like a good a lie to me, Doesn't it?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

The words "integrity" and "McCain" should not be used together since he has built or accepted a campaign on sleaze and lies.

The press can and should do better than pretend to be balanced. If there are no facts--only truthiness--is there really a functional press?

Posted by: scientist1 | September 11, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

excellent column. I have never understood this silliness the media does that if one side is doing wrong or is wrong the media insists on finding anything they can to ding the other side just so they can say they are being even.
that is not objectivity.
What is objective is calling the wrong side on bad behavior period without having to find some nonsense to tag the other with.
It is counterproductive and pure nonsense.

Posted by: vwcat | September 11, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

you yankees do realise how ridiculous you all look right now don't you? i mean, electing GWB for a second term was funny enough, but this is just CLASSIC! it's hilarious how caught up you are in irrelevant stuff like who can be made to look racist, sexist, who's slurring who - it's a bloody circus.

instead of trying to work out how you'd each fare under their respective policies, you're all trying to work out which politician would play better as the president in a hollywood film.

this election will affect the whole world in profound and lasting ways - all US elections do. can you please start taking it seriously?

Posted by: not from there | September 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

a two party system held together by lies and "culture wars" is not a democracy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

If Obama's words linked Sarah Palin to pigs, he should apologize indeed. To pigs.

Posted by: JMB | September 11, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

The real lie by the Democrats is their suggestion that they care about the white working class voter. Anyone who has lost a job due to affirmative action knows - and probably always remembers - that the Democratic party is not on their side. I think there will be more jobs if we just start drilling for oil locally. In the meantime, remember the Democrats only reach out beyond their corrupt, big city machine politics when they need the rural, blue collar worker to win the presidency.

Posted by: John D. | September 11, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Paraphrasing John D.'s post:
The real lie by the [politicians] is their suggestion that they care about the [insert demographic stereotype here] voter. Anyone who has lost a job due to [a government program] knows - and probably always remembers - that the [politicians are] not on their side. I think there will be more jobs if we just start [another government program]. In the meantime, remember the [politicians] only reach out beyond their [insert stereotype here] machine politics when they need the [insert opposing stereotype] worker to win the presidency.

It works just as well regardless of who says it. How can you tell a [insert hated profession here] is lying? Their lips are moving.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Both sides lie. Remember war for 100 years. Clearly taken out of context, but you don't speak up then, why now? because it's now not in your favor. Your discussion of honor in politics is a joke. If you claim McCain has no honor, neither does Obama. But you only point to one side. the other side only points at your side. And we all go blindly along screaming at the top of our lungs, while no one watches the road. Wonderful.

Posted by: fun | September 11, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

McBush/Palin: the real bridge to nowhere!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

I think the interesting thing is that the Republicans were so willing to assume that the pig in question is their vice presidential candidate. They are the ones who rushed out claiming Palin is the pig.
"He said 'pig,' he must be talking about Palin!"
Hey, if you insist, guys. Let's hear it for your white-trash lipstick pig from Alaska.

Posted by: woody2471 | September 11, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Michael as usual, a good op-ed. You are right on the money. It's embarrassing being an American these days. I had hoped we could change the political process some but it just keeps getting worse.

American Idol would do a better job at selecting a president than our current public. The public can only blame themselves. The Republicans do this because they can get away with it and it works.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

We, the USA, are teetering on the edge of a possible economic depression, we are losing people every day in an immoral occupation of Iraq, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to elections, we have lost our moral authority around the world, we have 47 million people uninsured, we have accumulated a national debt that threatens the future of our children and grandchildren, we have failed to seriously address our dependence on foreign oil, and all the press can talk about is LIPSTICK ON A PIG!!! Give me a break!!!

Posted by: Rody | September 11, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Obama's remark referred to McCain's campaign dressing up old policies in new wrappings, and not to Palin at all....

... but the point could be made that Palin is the lipstick, the cosmetic, applied to make McCain's tired old campaign look better.

Posted by: Pyre | September 11, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

The political process in this country won't change because the people refuse to be outraged by it.

Posted by: sconsongs | September 11, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Once you lose your honor and integrity - you have lost who you are. Very sad, a man once considered a hero is now reduced to lies and deceit.

A woman who once lived by the word of God, has forgotten Jesus words, "what so ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." She now thinks she is so above everyone that she refuses to be examined for the job of vice president. She thinks we should just take her word for it, when we have had a scandal a day since she was nominated.

Shameful, and too much is at stake for each of us and our beloved country to make this about personality. John McCain could die, and we would be left with someone we know NOTHING about.

Posted by: Anne | September 11, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

This is how corrupt our country has become. The United States deserves what it has become, a wasteland. A collapsing stuporpower living in the past. Lies with equal currency as fact.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his people are good at theatrical productions with styrofoam and flags, bombastic speeches delivered in loud baritone, and high-sounding empty phrases like “audacity of hope,” “the change we have been hoping for,” “the defining moment of our times,” “the exigency of the moment,” or “citizen of the world.” But when it comes to plain political sense, they are just boneheaded. Even a rookie candidate for city council would not advocate sex education for kindergartners. Even a rookie candidate for city council would not say “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” knowing that the audience would associate “lipstick” with Palin’s speeches and of course would be familiar with the derogatory use of “pig” for a woman. It’s irrelevant what he meant. Whatever he meant, it was still boneheaded.

Posted by: Austin7 | September 11, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

MK writes: "So if the sins of both campaigns are reported as roughly equal, the media feel they are doing their job -- even if this is objectively untrue."

Unfortunately, the antecedent of 'this' might be unclear to some readers.

Posted by: B Haines | September 11, 2008 4:11 AM | Report abuse

So what if he was calling Palin a pig. A pig she is just like all the other pigs. Politicians are all pigs at the trough. She is quite attractive pig. But a pig she is. The more we find out about her the more porcine she is. Like Napoleon the pig she would put her extremist views down our collective throats she's a wackjob in a skirt. If elected Dana Carvey would have to come back to reprise his “Churchlady” persona.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 4:19 AM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because self-righteous, insecure and waning ideologies have nothing else to offer the voter.

Posted by: BeerBellyBuddah | September 11, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Head of State

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Palinism: Politics as The Content-Free Violation of Expectation

What is Palinism?

What is it about?

What policies?

What ideas?

What positions?

Even in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, while no doubt many were motivated by regional partisanship, local prejudices, and "the measure" of the candidate, one suspects that at least a rough rendering of the issues--secession vs. Union, free vs. enslaved--was carried in and animated the crowds.

Now, it is pure reaction to pattern. To one impulse expectation violated by the provocation of another impulse, that feels--good.

We have reached the content-free phase of American politics.

A form, an image--glasses, hair, a voice, what it suggests--is enough. She could be speaking the words to the airport timetable, the swearing-in speech of Ferdinand Marcos, the ingredients of a
box of Sizzlean--the image, the sound, and the gathering impulse, the bare stirring from dull lack of novelty--is sufficient to awaken the crowds to angry perturbance at...the stimulus to be perturbed, and the bare sense of actual directed action and purpose that comes with doing so.

Palin herself wears a glazed, slightly confused look in her eyes--what is it that has unleashed this roar, this approbation. Being used to herself, and having been among those who are well used to her, she is unaware of the novelty that her mere form releases in the dazed electorate, yearning for a pretext for expression. Soon, she'll believe it herself.

And, after all, isn't that what democracy is all about? The ability to choose to decide without knowledge? Better yet, to choose your knowledge, irrespective of fact, in correspondence with the liberating, confirmation-free impulse?

This is what today's moment stands for.

These are our satisfactions and securities in this golden age.

Head of State

Posted by: Robert Hewson | September 11, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

What would a GOP style campaign against McCain look like? We need look no further than the 2000 GOP Primary when the people that now run his campaign ran the Bush campaign against him to find out.

Back in 2000 the people that now run John McCain’s campaign portrayed John McCain as both gay and cheating on his wife. The Bush campaign indicated that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw and couldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. They further used the time he spent in Vietnam against him to insinuate that he was a “Manchurian Candidate”, that he was a coward and traitor. The Bush campaign said that McCain had father a child with a black prostitute and suggested that Cindy McCain was a drug addict.

The GOP foot soldiers ate it up.

These things were all said about McCain by Republicans, many of which now run his own Presidential campaign. Back in 2000 the people that run McCain’s campaign showed the world how little integrity and honesty they possess. They showed the world that they would smear anybody to get what they want – even a POW.

What does it say about McCain now that he has surrounded himself with the very people that assassinated his character, his family, and veterans in general? What does it say about John McCain now that he has traded in the “straight talk express” for the people that he knew from first hand experience could smear and lie better than anybody?

Posted by: ECBURNS | September 11, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

OF COURSE Obama was referring to Palin when he said "lipstick on a pig!"

OF COURSE that's why his crowd laughed so hard!

You GOP flacks and numbskulls totaly missed the point, though, which is why this whole thing just makes you look like idiots--

Palin's not the PIG-- PALIN IS THE LIPSTICK. McBush is the Pig!

Posted by: frededias | September 11, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of gay whatever happened to that gay hooker that was sleeping with Bush?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:33 AM | Report abuse

Excellent column -

Why do lies prevail?

Some of posts from McCain supporters are clearly answering that question.

Posted by: McMunn | September 11, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

Hindsight proves all, does it not?

In 2000 Republicans pushed lies about Al Gore and Bush became president.

Gore lost and Bush won. The best man did not win and we got the worst president in US history.

Gore would have made a much better president that Bush. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

2004, the Swiftboaters made lies about the record of John Kerry. Kerry lost andm again, the worst president in US history was reelected.

Kerry would have been a better choice than Bush. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Now it is 2008 and the Republicans are at it again. Forget about the issues when lies win the election but at what a cost/ The country is in the worst shape in its history. Do the Republicans even care?

Am I the only person that thinks that Karl Rove and his politics (Does the man believe in anything) is far more of a traitor to this country than any of the terorists?

Just look at the results. If you are proud of this country today, a nation of torturers and wiretappers, an economy in the gutter, schools and infrastructure crumbling, reputation shot. Look at what Karl Rove and Bush have wrought.

Posted by: MarkinNY | September 11, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse




Posted by: H J McCullough, Haddonfield, N J | September 11, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

If everyone laughed when Obama said LIPSTICK ON A PIG then it was FUNNY. HA HA HA.

Posted by: katman | September 11, 2008 6:04 AM | Report abuse

As long as we are on the subject of metaphors involving pigs, I'd like to bring up another one that the selection of Palin reminds me of - a pig in a poke. I expect I'll be accused of sexism and elitism for this, but for those of you who are not familiar with this very common phrase in the English language (remember that is our language in the US), it means some sort of goods being sold to us while it is still in a bag or container that does not allow us to inspect the quality of the good. That phrase suits the Palin selection to a T!

Posted by: Mark Gillis | September 11, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Republicans know these are lies, but they LOVE them, because they see how it drives Democrats crazy. Democrats and Republicans have very different goals. Democrats' goal is to govern effectively. Republicans' goal is much simpler: to beat and humiliate Democrats. If the country goes down the tubes, that's OK, as long as the Republicans get to win the game. After all, conservative ideology holds that it's every man for himself. If the economy goes into full-blown depression, a good conservative sucks it up and finds a way to make it. If you don't make it, it's because you weren't good enough. At least, in a depression, you're starting out feeling good about yourself because you whipped the hated Democrats. You didn't want their stupid help anyway.

Posted by: vertie | September 11, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

We rely on journalists to help dig up the facts about politicians and then question them on it. It seems only Fox News has decided, with all its heart, to take the position of one party. All the other are fence sitting. As a result, ABC, NBC and CBS appear neutered because they refuse to push the hard questions and demand hard answer.

Washington Post -- you should be demanding answers! You should be publishing the details behind the facts of this political year and party platforms.

Instead -- we are a talking about lip stick. Not the Economy!! Not the Wars!! We are in TWO F#$@%ng WARS!!! and you are writing about LIP STICK!!

Editors, Journalist, Writers ... get some pride and use your heads to get the facts out about the canidates positions. Make the party platforms the front page, not Fox News rantings. Only then will the voters have good information to decide

Posted by: TommyT | September 11, 2008 6:36 AM | Report abuse

Why lie? The truth is often difficult to discover, or if discovered, to understand, or if understood, to communicate. It can be complicated and frequently impossible to convey in the few words that will fit in the public's attention span.

Lies can be clear, coherent, consistent with some of the facts and easy to relate. Lies can be edited to fit. They can even be poetic.

Stalin once said that the best storytellers always prevail.

Posted by: J Ferguson | September 11, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

Lies prevail simply because so many are willing to believe them. Politicians know this, and so do columnists even as they feign outrage.

Posted by: rmpatera | September 11, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger reason is that no one -- not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters -- cares enough about lying."

Not so, millions of voters DO care. And we tend not to be registered Republicans.
Welcome to Double Standard Theatre:

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more-qualified candidates you're a "token hire." If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more-qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America. White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic." Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story." Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you're "unpatriotic." Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're "reckless." A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a "maverick."

If you spend three years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of one 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African-American voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, then spend nearly eight more years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly four years in the U.S. Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend four years on the city council and six years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the commander-in -hief of the Alaska military and are well-qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an "arrogant celebrity." If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are "energizing the base."

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions you are "presumptuous." If you are an older male candidate who makes last-minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a "shoot from the hip" maverick.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are "an elitist, out of touch" with the real America. if you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a hero.
If you manage a multimillion-dollar nationwide campaign, you are an "empty suit." If you are a part-time mayor of a town of 7,000 people, you are an "experienced executive."

If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are "extremist." If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is manmade, you are "strongly principled."

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. If you have been married to the same woman with whom you've been wed to for 19 years and raising two beautiful daughters with, you're "risky."

If you're a black single mother of four who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you're an irresponsible parent, endangering the life of your unborn child. But if you're a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you're spunky.

If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you "First Dog." If you're an 18-year-old Chelsea Clinton, John McCain tells a "joke" that says the reason you're so ugly is because Janet Reno is your father. If you're a 17-year-old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you "beautiful" and "courageous."

If you teach abstinence-only in sex education, you get teen parents. If you teach responsible age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

But people. We're spending time discussing this absurdly irrelavant triviality.

America has become a joke. How stupid are you people? Yes, I'm American, but I live abroad, so I excuse myself from this idiocy.

Have you all gone insane back home? How this happening? Where are the adults?

Posted by: Dave | September 11, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for calling it what it is: lies. I don't know if the American people are able to understand that the McCain express is running uncontrollably through the streets and highways of this country spreading lies and lying to the gathering throngs, but thank you for using the ugly terms and calling it what it is.

I don't know what is scarier. The fact that people don't seem to care that they are being lied to by candidates for the highest political offices of this country or that the lies form the basis of a presidential campaign plan. Either way, our country is in big trouble.

Posted by: Scary Times | September 11, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Picture this: an ad with footage of McCain making the "lipstick on a pig" remark, fade to Palin making the lipstick joke, fade to the "outrage" expressed by the McCain camp over Obama's reference.
Kinda looks like someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth - making yet another pathetic attempt to (engage the press) by extension, derail the American public.
Oops! Might the aforementioned fantasy ad portray dirty politics and diversion from the real issues?
I loved Obama's response: "Enough!" I, for one, was glad to see that he made a rebuttal, did not back down and did not apologize. Hmmm, somehow he has fooled me into thinking he is a man of integrity. Not so much from paying attention to the sensationalism, or the poll du jour. I formed my opinion by listening to him and watching how he deports himself. That speaks more loudly to me than the latest headline.

Posted by: BarbS | September 11, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

This is how fascism happened, people. It's a sad day for America.

Posted by: Dee Dee | September 11, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Republicans don't know the difference between a pitbull and a pig.

Posted by: Ted S. | September 11, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

politics these days is all about saying a lie enough times with a straight face so that people think it is the truth.

Sarah Palin's greatest talent is that she looks the camera straight in the eye when even telling the baldest lie. Till she is outed, she will be given the benefit of the doubt as she, as a fresh face, isn;t perceived to be so banal.

Posted by: nclwtk | September 11, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

From Politico: A major Democratic fundraiser described it a good bit more starkly after digesting the polls of recent days: “I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”

Just say it Michael Kinsley--OBama should have picked Hillary. Now his Big Ego is in a knot and he cannot get off of Palin--what a complete fiasco!

Posted by: zippy | September 11, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse


Demanded by the man who said that Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan was lipstick on a pig? The man who said that Hillary Clinton's daughter was so ugly because Janet Reno was her father?

This fake outrage, this hasty selection of an unknown with serious family problems as his running mate, this liar is the same old John Mccain that offended millions of women long ago and has offended them for all his years in office.

Now he wants to pretend he has appeased women interested in women's issue by snagging a real live bimbo and hiding her from the press.

Silly John, women expect any woman who finally breaks the glass ceiling to do so on her own merit... not after schooling by the republican machine.

Posted by: dutchess2 | September 11, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a caricature of a strong women...a white caveman's image of what they THINK is feminist.

Rather than showing confidence in a woman as a contender for VP, they select someone who is barely qualified and can barely handle the job and domestic responsiblities she has now.

Rather than select someone who can intelligently address the issues, they select someone they need to shelter from legitimate questions from the media. They need to insist on deference, since they clearly don't think she can heandle the situation they've created for her.

Then, totally misinterpreting (oh, no...the republican's wouldn't distort) their competitor's comments about McCain's failed policies, they point to Palin and whine "sexist insulting comment about our woman!" Even if they really believed the comment was directed at Mrs Palin, they showed their own sexist bias by responding FOR her, rather than let her respond herself.

What frightens me are the voters who are taken in by this rovian distortion of reality and think McCain's campaign's behavior is gallant or chivalrous. If they can't see through the chauvinism and gall...i fear they'll lock us into another, intolerable four years just like the last eight!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

McCain has honor? Not if the last few months are any indication. He's run one of the most disgusting lowbrow campaigns in memory. The next 8 weeks, judging by the last week, will only be worse.

Posted by: Sean | September 11, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Present company excepted, McShame's dishonorable ads are being additionally circulated by many media persons without challenge.

Posted by: Four more years? | September 11, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I was doing some surfing on Ms Palin this past week. Her record as mayor, and as governor show that, at least in financial management, she IS a pig. Every budget she's ever touched has grown by leaps and bounds as she and her administrations, gobbled up money and rooted for more. You think we have a deficit and national debt problem now? McCain and Palin would finish the destruction of our tottering financial system.

I'll give McCain and Palin credit for one thing; they've definately influenced me to check out ALL the candidates for President this election. There are better people running for that office.

Posted by: Michael D. Houst | September 11, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, the American people will again play the "stupid" card and vote on the soundbite rather than on the issues that supposedly matter to them. We'll have at least 4 more years like the last 8 and will have no one to blame but stupid Americans who can't make informed choices and, instead, make a choice based on soundbites because they are too lazy to actually pay attention longer than 30 seconds.

Posted by: Mom of Two | September 11, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

McCain's campaign is desperate. Why do u think he s=chose Sarah Palin as a running mate after only meeting her once. Is that what you do when you put "country first"? This man has some serious judgement issues. And why won't they allow Mrs. Palin to go on any interviews? Is she not qualified enough?

Posted by: cbrown | September 11, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

It's a win at all costs strat - it's just further proof McCain says one thing and does another. It's his last hurrah, and he will do and say anything, true or not. He doens't care about us, he cares about winning. The republicans are the party in power and they do anything to keep that power.

Posted by: Robin | September 11, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse



Posted by: David G. Ward | September 11, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

They are not lies nor are they truths. They are statements of propaganda made to reinforce existing opinions and prejudices that the intended audience already has. The controversy and noise surrounding the “statements” also is used to ensure that any discussion beyond the propaganda speech is drowned out.

In the propaganda wars that have not become our politics, in the strictest sense no objective truths exist, nor do they need to exist. There are only propaganda statements that arouse, motivate and agitate into to “active voter” status, a particular faction, or coalition of factions of voters, who support the candidate.

Posted by: rc115shepherd | September 11, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Lies work because the media doesn't do its job. If one party said the world was flat and the other said the world was round, the cable networks would have a panel with representatives from both points of view coming to the conclusion that each side may have a point. The truth is where it is. It doesn't always lay in the middle. But as long as the press plays everything down the middle, the lying side is going to benefit from being untruthful.

Posted by: Steve O | September 11, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

McCain's ads keep saying that Obama would "raise your taxes." This dispite Obama's continued promise to cut taxes on the middle class. While Obama may not deliver on this promise, nothing in his stated positions suggest that he would raise taxes. This is another example of McCain's compaign of lies. I once respected McCain and even considered voting for him depending on who the Democratic nominee was. That respect is gone and energizes me to work for the Obama campaign.

Posted by: browneri | September 11, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that everytime we see Sarah Palin we see her husband too? Isn't he supposed to be babysitting or something? Who is paying for all of her family to flights, food, etc. and will she charge the Alaskians per diem to stay in her home while back in Alaska? Why are her children not in school? Also, what is Sarah's husband going to do when and if she becomes VP, is he still going to be her shadow??

Posted by: Lil Sugar | September 11, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Look at this definition of sociopaths. It describes politicians.

- Glibness and Superficial Charm
- Grandiose Sense of Self
- Pathological Lying
- Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
- Shallow Emotions


Posted by: stewart | September 11, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

rjmsilver 9-10 comment that people laughed when Obama used the phrase proved it was for palin?

Don't mouth off when you don't have the facts and don't do your home work. ALL day the clips of McCaiin using the term were shown. McCain's audience was uproarious- far louder than Obama's. The phrase is routinely used to draw laughs.

Obama,s context was unmistakenly aimed at McCain's pretnsions of change. McCain ads tried to spin it- and,as a loyal McCainiac, you bit hook, line and sinker. which just proves that politics is all emotion and little brain for all of us.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

To Anonymous, who wrote on 11 September at 6:53 AM,

Superb post! Hats off to you. What you wrote is far better than anything I have seen in the MSM for weeks; it really goes to the heart of the matter, illustrating and thus uncovering the hypocrisy of the right wing. What never ceases to surprise me is that the little kittens who vote in this country lap it up like fine cream - you can see their whiskers soaked in it.

Why stay anonymous; you should take created for such a great piece of writing.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Well, my last post was anonymous by accident (I goofed and forgot to type in my name), not in solidarity.

Posted by: Mark Gillis | September 11, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

McCain clearly has bought into the Rove philosophy that no trick or lie is too evil if it might help win. McCain has fought his own insecurity all his life, trying to prove himself to his dad. Now it is clear that he has failed. His insecurity is well justified. He is a sham and he knows that others know it.

Posted by: frodot | September 11, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Going too far? So was "How many homes do you have?" and "Why do you want to fight for 100 years?"

They are all nutso.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | September 11, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

What a joke McCain has become. He stands there like a statue while Palin is shaking hands and smiling, offering NOTHING to ease our minds that she IS qualified to be Vice-President who MIGHT be called to be PRESIDENT! After all, old John McCain does look unhealthy and IS 72 years old!

The Lipstick on a Pig flap is silly. McCain is lying again, trying to tell US what Obama MEANT when he used that phrase, "Lipstick on a Pig".
It is Karl Rove tactics, and the negative ad they ran about Obama yesterday is shocking! What did HE mean when he used that phrase during the primaries when Hillary Clinton was running? Was he calling Hillary a pig?

McCain is not being honest! I wonder how many lies HE told to his first wife Carol while he was carrying on his adulterous affair with Cindy??? Isn't CHARACTER and HONESTY supposed to be a qualification for president??? If so, McCain loses!!

Posted by: Amanda | September 11, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Hey, rljmsilver, look at the video of McCain using "Lipstick on a pig" when he was referring to Hillary's health care plan. The audience cracked up then too. So what's your point?

Posted by: colton | September 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

BLAH BLAH The usual spin from Kinsley. Can you have an orginal hate post? The Washington Post is trying very hard to let the Demcracts have an monopoly on the media.. The Post CNN, MSNBC, and NBC are the worst offenders...Please be fair..

Posted by: Dubs | September 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Over and over again I tell you that you are not the solution but rather you are the problem.

Lies will stop when good decent folk tell the press they will accept no more deceit from them. No more lies. Unfortunately you can't see this so you keep lying, talking, twisting, camoflaging, spinning. You even think you are ok to do so, like it was printed as part of your job description.

Posted by: steven | September 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

All your newspaper does is report from the Republican's side.
It's clear that this particular newspaper takes it's orders from the Republican party and its many and varied organizations around the beltway. It is a deeply, fundamentally a Republican establishment paper and desperately wants the Bush foreign policy to continue. So that goes towards explaining why the Republicans are calling the tune here .....

The Republicans have Fox tv campaigning for them constantly and that fact has been underestimated, what a boost. As long as Fox exists to bash Democrats, they will never have a chance. Too many Americans like Fox's thinking for them. Any Democrat that appears on Fox is automatically greatly and permanently diminished in stature in my view.

The Republicans are triumphantly controlling the agenda via the media ... that helps.
There is something else going on in all of this, I can't figure out what it is ...

Rick Davis and Karl Rove run the whole shebang, Republican and Democratic, they dominate this election cycle yet again,

There isn't even a whimper now from the Democrats, that surprises me beyond all measure.

Posted by: Amanda Greene | September 11, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The best part about this whole comment is that if you actaully listen to the context and not just the sound bite, McCain is the Pig and Palin (by a stretch) would be the lipstick.

Posted by: tired of it all | September 11, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin lies about the "bridge to nowhere," the "nearly finished" pipeline, and her taking of travel reimbursement for working at home. She gets away with this because the last 2 generations of American students have learned neither to read nor to thing critically. We are self-governed by illiterate fools and deserve whatever we get.

Posted by: abc3 | September 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Palin lied about the "bridge to nowhere," she supported the bridge to nowhere.

Palin lied about seeking earmarks, she hired a crony lobbyist of an indicted criminal to seek earmarks.

McCain lied when he said Palin sold the Alaska government jet on e-bay, she didn't, she sold it to a crony friend who'd contributed to her campaign for less than %75 what the state had paid for it.

The Republicans tell the big lies every four years and the press is too timid to call them out for it because of veiled threats but Republican thugs.

I usually disagree with Kinsley, but hoorah for him for having the decency and courage to call a lie a lie.

Posted by: Journalist Supporter | September 11, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

From the Wikipedia entry on "Big Lie":

"The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

It seems Mr. Rove is not so original after all.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

A matter of "neighborliness." That's how Democratic presidential aspirant Barack Obama justified raising taxes.

Obama compared the circumstances of a person who is "sitting pretty" with that of a waitress. The waitress struggles, said Obama, while the rich can, and should, pay more. Nothing more, really, than a standard soak-the-rich plan, redistributing the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. But does Obama practice his own "neighborliness"?

When Obama and his wife earned between $200,000 and $300,000 annually from 2000 through 2004, they donated less than 1 percent to charity. As a result of the sales from Obama's two books, he and Michelle earned as much as $4 million per year the past couple of years. Then the Obamas' charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Let's turn to Iraq. Obama grudgingly concedes that the surge worked "beyond our wildest dreams." But he points out an "underlying problem." What "underlying problem"? Obama accuses the Iraqi government of failing to attain "political reconciliation," insisting that the government refuses to "take responsibility." Really?

Of the 18 so-called Iraqi government benchmarks demanded by Congress, the Iraqi government has met or is close to meeting nearly all of them. Of the 18 provinces in Iraq, the Iraqi military and police now control 11 of them. Gen. David Petraeus, the region's commander, recently said that by next summer, he expects the Iraqis to take over control of Baghdad. In July, there were six American combat-related deaths, down from 66 last July.

Let's turn to the economy and Bush's allegedly failed economic policies. Under President Bush, the economic pie grew. Tax receipts grew by 20 percent, to the highest level in our nation's history. And remember, Bush inherited an economy going into a recession. On Sept. 11, 2001, America suffered the worst attack on its soil in its history. Spending increased for Homeland Security and the war in Iraq. And of the current economic sluggishness, most can be attributed to the slump in housing. Does anybody, except for the most ardent Bush-hater, blame the President for the housing downturn? Following 9/11, polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly expected another attack within six months to a year. We have not had another attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11.

One of Obama's plans to "rescue" the American economy includes a "windfall" profits tax to punish oil companies for their "obscene profits." But the price of a barrel of oil fell from $147 per barrel in July to $101 today. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., assails the "oilmen" in the White House for rising oil prices. But the same "oilmen" remained in the White House during the more than 30 percent decline in prices. For what it's worth, the United States produces almost 7 percent of the world's crude oil supply. So somehow, someway, the greedy oilmen managed to push oil prices to worldwide historic levels, despite controlling only 7 percent of supply.

So what does this all mean for the presidential race between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain? Issue No. 1, for most voters, remains the economy. Obama recently said he may delay tax hikes in the event of continued economic sluggishness. Obama thus admits that higher taxes negatively affect the economy during hard times. But during good times, higher taxes affect the economy positively? And as to the war in Iraq, polls show Americans now confident of victory. Credit the "surge" -- an increase in forces and a change in tactics long championed by McCain. Obama not only opposed the surge but also predicted its failure. He was wrong, and McCain was right.

Obama offers the George McGovern/Walter Mondale/Al Gore/John Kerry prescription of class warfare and class envy. It blames American "aggression" for its alleged loss of "respect" in the eyes of the world.

The other side shows greater belief in free markets and free trade, and considers American success in Iraq a matter of national security. Democrats attack McCain and his image as a "maverick" by claiming that the Arizona senator voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time. But Sen. Barack "hope and change" Obama, in the past three years, voted with his party nearly 97 percent of the time.

Americans, in the final analysis, want a strong economy and wish to live in safety and security. So the choice is simple. It's McCain

Posted by: dubs | September 11, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

hey kinglsley, you twirp...I will stipulate that NoBama did not refer to Gov Palin regarding the lipstick comment. But what does it say about his judgment? Knowing full well that making any remark about lipstick so very close to the remark she made at the Convetion? Moreover, during his unfortunate remark, the audience behind him went into hysterics suggeting that they knew exactly what he was referring to. So, Kingsley, give yourself a break before you burst your carotid artery as ylou almost didi on Crossfire!

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Dave. The pig thing is trivial and the responses here show why the triviality works. So many of the responses got hung up on the pig comment, and that shows how a lie in politics works. The lie distracts the general public from the issue(s). THAT'S why lies prevail in politics. If the politicians were to answer questions about real, meaningful issues thoughtfully and fully, the public would change the channel, throw the paper away, and not read the magazine.

Issues don't sell, lies are easy. Sound bites are what the public wants. It's sad, but average people don't want to stress themselves by trying to figure out how a real leader would manage the mess he will inherit.

Posted by: paquers | September 11, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Butch Dillion

You are another good reason why people lie. Your comments about me are a total lie. I am a registered independent who saw the video on CNN of Obama's comment and the audience's reaction. I am not affiliated with any political party.

When bloggers like you make absolutely unfounded and lying comments, you serve as another example on how hate speech oriented extremists could not see, understand and accept the truth if and when it is staring you in your face.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 11, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Well, I'm no political science major, but I have been working at doing some research on things lately. Watching a video clip of Obama telling an enthusiastic crowd that he wants to get the troops out of Iraq(which I agree with) and stop spending billions of dollars to rebuild that country (which I also agree with) and wants to start rebuilding our country (again, I agree) then finding out about an obscure bill that was sponsored by Obama and co-sponsored by Biden, that wants the US to send Billions (if not trillions) of dollars to countries that are broke, made me furious. He wants to do a national healthcare program, end the Bush tas cuts AND help pay to take care of the rest of thr world? That, my fellow citizens, is Socialism. If you want to see the Bill that I am talking about, go to read through the entire thing, but pay particular attention to paragraph (9)

McCain on the other hand, has no qualms about telling people that he has no problem in keeping our troops in Iraq for another 50 or 100 years? Even if he cant do that, he is basically making jokes about it. Why should we spend (again) trillions of dollars in a part of the globe that doesnt want us there, to rebuild a country that will tear itself apart when we leave in the first place. There has been war/infighting/racial and religious tension over there for centuries, you cant tell me that our military presence can change that.

Now if you want to check out someone that is talking about issues, REAL issues, not about putting lipstick on a pig, or being different from a pit bull. Check out Bob Barr.

Thank you for reading...

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

One guaranteed casualty of this election will be bipartisanship. Forget all that nonsense about "reaching across the aisle". If Obama wins, he will enter office so embittered by what his "fellow Americans" did to him and apparently think of him, that he will find it very difficult to govern effectively. It is disgraceful that the only way he is seen to have a chance at victory is to get down and roll in the slime with the Republicans. If Smiley McCain wins, he will face a hostile Democratic Congress who will not allow him to pass water, let alone legislation, and won't be able to look at him without fantasizing about his cold, rotten heart exploding.

The ridiculous nonsense that this country tolerates as "just politics" is immature and demeaning. Every election it gets lower and more pathetic, and the attention-deficit electorate just slurps it up out of the gutter and begs for more. You have become a supermarket tabloid nation that would make the founding fathers weep with shame.

Posted by: Mark | September 11, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Everyone help me out here.Palin is a LIAR. McCain is a liar.See, it not that hard.Reporters cover their butts by using alternate names(mistake,untruth,mis-spoke and a million other) so call it like it is or get out of the way.

Posted by: Jack Hickey | September 11, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

It's bad enough when we elect liars to high office, but it's rediculous to elect them BECAUSE they lie!

Posted by: rj2z | September 11, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"He says he’d rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he’d rather lose that honor he’s always going on about than lose the election."

Very well put, and it's what has saddened me the most about McCain's campaign. He fought the good fight in 2000 and lost; now he's fighting a very bad one and might win. Shame on us.

Posted by: elsid | September 11, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

butch dillon, what evidence do you have to prove that NOBama did not mean to refer to Gov Palin? Either way, he is either a liar and exhibits bad judgment. Besides, I have no respect for a man who did not serve his country in uniform and now wants to lead the most powerful military in the world as the be commander-in-chief.

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is rated by National Journal as the most liberal Senator in the US Senate in 2007. He is, by definition, on the "fringe" of the spectrum, (like a Jesse Helms may have been in previous years on the other end of the spectrum). Why isn't Obama referred to a far-left Senator? Why isn't he referred to a being on the "fringe" of his party?

Posted by: Jimmy | September 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't make sense to compare Obama's remark to ones that McCain made earlier, or even ones that Obama made earlier. Palin's speech put "lipstick on an animal" in everyone's mind.

Lots of people felt that Obama was slyly hinting at Palin, and were offended. Whether you were or not, whether McCain was or not, is irrelevant.

Obama should have had the sense to make a standard "I never intended to offend anyone, but I see that some people took my words that way, and I see how that could have happened. I'm really sorry." type of apology. No one would have blamed him any further. Instead, he, and all of you, are digging him in deeper.

McCain thanks you.

Posted by: MikeR | September 11, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone here actually understand what the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" means? If you do, then there's no controversy at all.

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Kinsley ought to know about lies. He worked for the Clintons, who wouldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit them. As for the loser, John Kerry, the Swift Boat guys knew him better than any liberal democrat.
I love to see liberals like Kinsley whine when the Republicans turn the tables on them and use the "outrage" bit to put them on the defensive.
Pathetic little wusses these democrat whiners.

Posted by: LarryG62 | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Journalists' increasing cowardice is one reason why media outlets are sinking and this is just the latest example. Why would journalists hesitate to point out that McCain and Palin (or any other politician for that matter) are lying? For some reason, media outlets have a policy that they must not offend anyone. Why not? Journalists are a vital part of democracy. Their view is just as important as those of people running for the White House, but for some reason, journalists don't seem to understand the power they have. In a way, journalists are a lot like Democrats: They have a lot of power but they are frightened to use it, falling back on the same excuse that they must be fair to everyone. I would argue that its being unfair to everyone to refuse to do your duty and report a lie as a lie. The truth, no matter what the politicians think, is important and it's worth irritating people to stick up for honesty. If journalists don't think so, then what, if anything, is their overall pursuit? If it's profit, they're failing at that too, so they might as well go down with some integrity.

Posted by: ding | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Kinsley is apparently ignorant of the legal doctrine of "colloquium."

Get thee to a Dictionary of Law!

Posted by: Alec Leamas | September 11, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Our media is failing "we, the people". You are right that they have difficulty calling a lie a lie, or a liar a liar....but isn't that part of the American vales that the republican so smugly talks about? John insane McCain will do all that he can to win...lie, cheat, give up his honor, cater to the divisive politics the republicans have honed so well....America and we, the people, deserve better. There are too many serious issues to deal with to leave it up to the old approach.

Posted by: Jim | September 11, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Bush always, McCain recently, and now Palin will go for the throat and make deeply personal attacks against their candidates that have nothing to do with the issue. So what even if Obama did call her a pig with lipstick. Keep saying it!! It's hilarious. The only way you win elections in America is if you go negative. Forget the issues Obama. Keep calling her a pig!

Posted by: So What | September 11, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

This is campaign rough-and-tumble. It happens every four years, and there was never a "Good Ol' Day" when it didn't happen. Mr. Kinsley's moral outrage at a phenomenon as regular as a leap year seems as contrived as McCain's outrage at the comment about "lipstick on a pig." Lies? Or just routine hyperbole. And since when are figures of speech "facts?" Politicians routinely damage their credibility without actually lying. Mr. Kinsley seems determined to do the same.

Posted by: Tim | September 11, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Bush and Rove proved that lying works.

It worked against Magoo in 2000.

Lies worked against Kerry in 2004.

Lies worked for starting the war in Iraq, cutting taxes as a means to increase revenue, and on and on and on.

Magoo lies because it works.

But it only works because the WaPo prints the lies.

Read the book by Al Franken; Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. It is all about the Republican party and their ingrained methods of spreading Lies.

But then, that could be a lie.

Posted by: McCain = Bush | September 11, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

To understand contemporary American politics one must understand something about Post Modernism which asserts that it is impossible to define right or wrong. All narratives are equivalent (except, of course, those phallocentric culturally dominant narratives are less so). So, you see, these are not lies because there is no Truth. Michael, you are just rejecting the grand Republican narrative.

How ironic that the Republicans have mastered this game that was unintentionally nurtured by 20th century liberalism (abortion is not murder, single parent families are just as good as two parent families, ‘programs’ solve social problems, etc, etc). This election is not about change, reform, or character. This election is about narrative. And irony.

How ironic that:

The Democrats have a very powerful, high integrity candidate who has been told by his own handlers to display less of his leadership qualities and be more mundane. Why? Because the Republicans attacked him for being powerful and lacking leadership skills.

John McCain, who has made a career out of telling everyone how much integrity he has (and what a clean fight this election would be), is now using the very people who decimated his candidacy with lies and malicious manipulation 8 years ago (when he DID still have the acumen to be president) to decimate the Obama candidacy.

The 72 year old McCain who is battling cancer and comes from a long line of males who die young and tells us that he loves country more than anything has selected Pit Bull Barbie for his running mate. Sarah Palin as President? There would be a 1 in 3 chance if they're elected. Just as our pleasure in sex is a reflection of life loving itself, McCain’s selection of Sarah is a reflection of the self’s lust for dominance and validation.

When reporters from the NYT and the Washington Post write fact based pieces on Pit Bull Barbie's various ethical lapses and obvious ill preparedness for the Vice Presidency it energizes the base. Why? Because in the Post Modern Republican narrative the NYT and the Washington Post are purveyors of lies and vicious manipulations, the very essence of evil. These are not newspapers.

And, if anyone has missed this over the last 8 years, EVIL is the secret weapon of the Republican Party. Who can argue with those who would slay the evil doers?

There is a good deal of evil in this world. One can find it in torturous, murderous Islamic radicals, one can find it in so called enlightened societies that execute criminals and murder the unborn, and, yes, one can even find it within the ambivalent heart of John McCain who is, I am sure, telling himself that he will someday write another self serving memoir confessing his sins in this election but all the while justifying it because only he had the heroism and love of country necessary to be president and save us from all the Evil closing in.

Final irony: McCain is helping to destroy that which he claims to love the most.

Posted by: Tom | September 11, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

There's no doubt that both Obama and McCain will continue what Bush started by flushing the US economy and our personal freedoms down the toilet. The only difference between the two is in which direction the water will spin as it goes, right or left. The only hope for America is to get the duopoly out of power. Vote Third-Party!

Posted by: Randy S | September 11, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

John McCain may not have been offended by Obama's remark, nor Sarah Palin. But it is obvious that the Obama campaign intended it as a swipe at Palin. I can't prove it, but it is obvious. They point out that others have used the turn of phrase before, even McCain, but it has never been a part of Obama's lofty oratory. No, once they caught Palin on video pointing at herself and saying "lipstick" in one of the most repeated lines of the election season, the Obama group made a conscious effort to use it against her. First it was Russ Carnahan in introducing Joe Biden, then of course Obama himself who played it for the laughs he knew would be coming.

Posted by: Mike S | September 11, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

If the Dems lose this election, this article right here is the EXACT reason why!

Posted by: MJC | September 11, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

"One reason is that the media have trouble calling a Republican candidate's lie a lie, or asserting that the Republican side is lying more than the other -- even when that is objectively the case"

I fixed that for you, Mr Kinsley. I know this because I lived on this planet between March 1999 and October 2000.

Posted by: zukermand | September 11, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Is "Paddycakes" an Irish slur? Everybody else spells it "pattycakes." Watch it, Kinsley.

Posted by: Paul | September 11, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger reason is that no one -- not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters -- cares enough about lying."

Oh really? Tell that to Gary Hart. Or John Edwards. Or Al Gore, who had lies made up for him, because he was too honest for his own good. Or John Kerry, who similarly had lies put in his mouth by others.

You're wrong, Michael, or rather, your observation is misplaced. People care about lies, if the lie is big enough or *made* big enough. Goebbels was right.

Posted by: Actor212 | September 11, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

McCain may be telling the truth when he says he would rather lose and election than lose an essentially unwinnable war. But of course he lies blatantly when he says Obama would lose a war to win an election. Michael hit the nail on the head when he said that McCain would rather lose his honor in order to win an election.

Posted by: Dave | September 11, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Bravo! You really hit the nail on the head. Both with the media's "professionalism" that always blames both sides equally no matter the facts and the hopeless situation it puts the more honest party in (the Democrats): they're wimps if they don't fight back and they're whiners if they do. The obvious solution is for the Democrats to become as slimy as the Republicans but that only risks an arms race in lies, deceit and deception and it's no solution at all if the ultimate welfare of our democracy is kept in mind. The Republican party is a national disgrace. Too bad it's those citizens who most ardently wave the flag and chant USA! USA! who don't recognize it.

Posted by: John in Chicago | September 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I don't think they are going to get away with it this time. The "friction" from 8 straight years of wall to wall lying is slowing the spread of this latest story.
The problem for the Republicans is the "Cry Wolf" sydnrome. Over the last two campaign cycles in particular, they've been the source of so many patently false charges that people are starting to ignore what they say and only register the fact they are lying again. Kerry was a VC spy, Obama is a Hate church attending, jidhadi sleeper agent...wait a minute I thought you said he went to a Christian hate church????
Most people, at least with IQs above room temperatures, are realizing the Repuiblicans would say anything to get elected. We are also starting to realize that slander is the only tool they have left. They can't run on their record, it's abysmal. They can't run on thier new ideas, they don't have any. They can't run on their existing policies, people blame them for our current predicaments, so what else can they do but slander their opponent?
They've accused him of being everything but a space alien and people are starting to notice the hysterical nature of thier accusations.
It doesn't bode well for them, to say the least.

Posted by: Dijetlo | September 11, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

8 years of Bush tax cuts created more tax revenue than 8 years of Clinton tax increase.
So why raise taxes, who wins ?

Posted by: jeff | September 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama was calling Palin a pig and maybe he wasn't ... who F-ing cares!? She called herself a ptibll with lipstick... I dont really want a pitbull for a VP or President... actually in PG County pibulls are illegal and if you're caught with one, you are fined and the dog is destroyed. So Mrs. Palin you are welcome to come visit me anytime you want, I have a nice chain in the backyard you can use until animal control stops by... sorry Senator Obama, I might have to pay a fine so I won't be able to send you that 100 bucks.

Posted by: BD | September 11, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

There is no penalty for lying, cheating, defaming, even murder when it comes to a Republican campaign strategy. These people are swine.

Posted by: norman ravitch | September 11, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters are only reaping what they have sown. Remember when Bill Clinton said that Obama's victory in South Carolina didn't matter because Jesse Jackson took the state in 1988?

"Wounded" Obama supporters high and low denounced that "racist" remark, even though it wasn't the slightest bit racist. If the Dems want to have a more rational campaign fine. But they have to practice what they preach.

Posted by: John Rohan | September 11, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kinsley,

You write, "I know that by even bringing this up, I am falling into the trap that McCain’s people have set and perpetuating this ridiculous controversy."

The solution to your dilemma is simply. Go nuclear on the lies.

Make certain that every where Mr. McCain's name appears in your piece you couple it to the word "liar", "lie", or "lying".

Note with sadness how the lesson John McCain learned from his 2000 defeat to the lying George Bush was that honor is an impediment, and so McCain has transformed himself into George Bush's mini-me.

Tell us that John McCain is so now desperate that he will tell us any lie to feed his presidential ambitions. Conclude, "Come on, he must think you're stupid."

When you and your colleagues respond to lies in this manner, the lying will stop. Until then, you are enabling the lies.

Best Wishes,
Jim Bales

Posted by: Jim Bales | September 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1. Dodd, Christopher $133,900
2. Kerry, John $111,000
3. Obama, Barack $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul $65,500

Posted by: Here is some TRUTH | September 11, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

lots of people are making claims of a paranormal sort in relation to this story -- the repulsicans are trying to claim that they know what all those people in the audience were thinking, and that what they were thinking is that obama had just zinged palin, even though palin had not been mentioned, her policies had not been referred to, and in fact, the clear and obvious topic of discussion was mccain's economic policies.

now, my 86 year old mother, who is every bit as spry and active as roberta mccain, but not always terribly well-informed about things and sometimes a bit forgetful of details, was at the allegedly offensive event in flint michigan, our hometown. she had also seen palin's speech at the rnc, and as a former community organizer, was highly insulted by the derisory dismissal of her volunteer activity. my 86 year old mother couldn't quite grasp how a woman whose initiation to politics had been the PTA--last time i checked, a community organization--could then insult community organizers for trying to make their communities better places. so, although she's sometimes a little forgetful of details, she remembered quite clearly what palin had said and how she had said it.

so there she is, at the obama event in flint, absolutely thrilled to see this man in the flesh. i don't think she's been this excited about a candidate since RFK in 68. and it's worth noting, too, that my mother is not a knee-jerk democrat--she voted for ford (hometown boy), for reagan once, for eisenhower, and for ross perot. obama makes his speech, and then makes that comment, and the crowd does indeed roar with approval.

so i asked my mother, who doesn't have cable, at the very beginning of this false controversy, what she thought about the pig in lipstick comment, and she said that both she and her gang of desperate widows with whom she attended the event all understood that obama was referring to mccain's economic plan, and that not one of them--not one of these elderly widows who are not hard-core political junkies, and not one person nearby them in the crowd thought that it was a reference to palin. everyone new exactly what obama was doing with that metaphor, he was calling a spade a spade (oops, can i say that?), and everyone in the room was happy he was doing so -- they saw at as him going on the attack, and they were approving the attack--on john mccain's economic proposals, which would have a deleterious effect on the flint region (and have you been to flint? you'd know why they were cheering).

so, to all the so-called truth squad out there trying to protect governor palin, to all those talking heads who, with their amazing psychic powers, have presented with certainty what the audience was thinking as evidence of obama "really meant," to all you spinmeisters out there who think we are dumb enough to believe any of this, ... let me introduce you to my 86 year old mother and her cohort of elderly widows who will be glad to provide you with first-hand testimony of what the audience thought. would you like to, would you dare to, call any of these women a liar ?

Posted by: the phenomenologist | September 11, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Good article. These are smart people running these campaigns and I think they should be ashamed of themselves for bringing the election down to a soap opera level. They know better, but comfort themselves with the idea that wining is all that counts.

Here's the issue for McCain - he selected Palin without really knowing her. This tells us everything we need to know about his judgment. The fact that the McCain campaign doesn't want her talking to the press just confirms it - they actually don't know what she might say.

The McCain campaign wants to generate as much noise as possible right now so that the core issue is not discussed. If this means flat out lying, no problem.

Posted by: utah boy | September 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The best way to show outrage towards a candidate who focuses in attacks and lies rather than telling us plainly how his presidency will help America is to vote for the candidate who does.

Obama has been telling us consistently what he will do for America:

cut taxes on the poor and middle class and raise taxes on the rich

bring home the troops from Iraq

send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden

talk, rather than go to war, with Iran over its nuclear ambitions

eliminate tax breaks for corporations that ship American jobs overseas

invest more money in alternative energy sources

insure that all Americans have health insurance

If you agree with these positions you should vote for Obama. McCain has switched positions on all of his major issues so it's hard to see what he would do as president. We do know he's voted with Bush 95% of the time, so it's hard to imagine how he'll bring change as he now says he will (of course, before he picked Palin he was talking about having the experienced ticket).

Do we want a president who has a clear and consistent policy or do we want one who keeps changing in order to get votes and whose platform is spreading lies and attacks?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The biggest liars in this country are in the media. Obama lies like a dog and the media never questions it, they just repeat it. Palin says two things, both true (that she put the plane on eBay and killed the bridge) and the left-wing media and the Democrats say she's lying.

By the way, here's what Congressional Quarterly said about Palin and the bridge - "Ultimately it was her call," according to CQ, and "not inaccurate for Palin to say she 'stopped the bridge to nowhere.'"

The media subscribes to the thinking that if you just repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. Michael Kinsley shows that he holds to that same philosophy. It's because of people like him that so few Americans trust the media anymore.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Kinsley on the role of the media in this circus. They allow republicans to constantly lie and spin on these news shows. I think the American public is waiting for a media outlet to call these people liars. The fact that those who use this tactic over and over and win elections, lets me know the crap this country has become. John McCain obviously doesn't have the honor he claims to have. If he did, he wouldn't allow a campaign in his name to operate like this.

Posted by: dre | September 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Spare us YOUR phony indignation, Kinsley.

Let's talk lies:

In 20 years, Barack Obama never heard Jeremy Wright say anything bad about America.

Barack Obama barely knows Bill Ayers.

MSNBC doesn't have an ideology.

The New York Times is scrupulously non-partisan in its news pages.

Posted by: pilsener | September 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

You people kill me....Only in America can we be sucked into issues like lipstick on a pig instead of actually talking about real issues. No wonder we seem to fall into the same rut every four years. And all of hypathetical "change" talk that keeps getting thrown around by the two empty suits is making me sick. How are they going to change? Spend more, tax more, go to war more, all it is, is a change for more more more. Why do we want more? are we greedy and feel that the government should be spoon feeding us from cradle to grave? There's a positive outlook on life. "Help me help myself because I dont want to take responsibility for screwing up" is what it sounds like to me.

Look people, there is a huge shortage of accountability in the country and while everyone seem to get sucked in by negative campaigning and smooth talk over issues they really know nothing about. Why is it we dont demand more from these two? The third parties dont seem to have a problem with laying it all out and telling you the why's and how's. and those are the people you seem to ignore. They get denied getting into the debates because the Republicrats fear having to tell the people truth and real answers that the third parties can actually give. Instead they will get thrown softball questions and give feel good answers that every person in the audience wil applaud for and say crap like "wow, he's so inspirational" and "he really knows the people and our struggles". Truth is, they dont know what you and I go through everyday just to get by, they are so far out of touch with reality that they probably dont even know you exist except when your late on your tax payments.

Everyone need to do them selves a favor and look into the third paties. Republicans should take a good hard look at the Libertarian Party and Constitutional Party and the Democrats should take a good hard look at the Green Party and Independent Ralph Nader. See what they have to offer, I dare you. And when you see your self connecting with them and getting real answers to real problems, ask yourself why the two party system isn't doing the same thing.

It's time that we stop this insanity we call the Republicrats and start thinking for ourselves, do your research and ask all your questions. you'll find the answers in places you never thought to look.

In Liberty

Posted by: mstone | September 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

You wrote:
"One reason is that the media have trouble calling a lie a lie, or asserting that one side is lying more than the other "

Part of the trouble is the media no longer just report but have decided to take it upon themselves that they are the better arbitors of who should be President and then try and convince the public who they should vote for by their coverage, their spin, and even their lack of coverage. The media decided this was going to be "the race" of either a first woman president or the first African American president even forgetting there was another side to the equation. They wallowed in their spin for Obama and finally fed the meme of racism against both Clintons. Thereby Obama comes on top and Clinton threatened with their future as democrats depending on how much she delivers to help him win. Enter Palin and for days we get lies and slime which is covered by the media before they even investigate and then want to hold themselves to a higher standing by saying we checked into it and it is untrue.
The mainstream media find it hard to call people liars when unfortunately they are unwilling to call themselves out for the same crime.

Posted by: Annie | September 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

When Bill Clinton said that even Jessie Jackson had momentum after winning South Carolina, where was Micahel Kinsley to denounce the Obama campaign as "not really being offended" and to defend Clinton that he didn't make a racist remark?

When Hillary Clinton said that it took LBJ to make the dreams of Martin Luther King come true, where was Michael Kinsley to say that the Obama campaign was "not really being offended: and defeninh Hillary for not being racist?

When Democrats claimed that McCain's celebrity ad was racist for showing white women in the same ad as Barack Obama, where was Michael Kinsley to denounce this as a lie, and to claim that the Obama campaign was not really offended?

Polishing his glasses on Barack Obama's nether region, that's where.

Nice try Kinsley, but until you are ready to denounce both sides equally, you have no credibility on this issue.

But by all mean,s keep bringing it up. I'll happily ignore your rantings while I continue to watch all of the polls move steadily toward the next President and Vice President of the United States, John McCain and Sarah Palin.


Posted by: ep | September 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

For all you MCcains fan here is your candidate uttering the same words:

Posted by: HKY-Virginia | September 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

A little potential truth-stretching by a Republican is nothing compared to the 8 years of serial mendacity exercised by the last Democrat we had in the White House. Have you forgotten "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky"? And Pres Clinton was lying UNDER OATH to a grand jury, for heaven's sake. Kinsley, in true liberal fashion, always sees the sins of the other side, while never seeing his own.

Posted by: Steve | September 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

This situation is what is most frustrating for me about this campaign. I and other I know care deeply about the truth, but it appears many do not share our concerns, including many in the media. Thank you, Michael Kinsley, for giving voice to my greatest frustration in such a logical -- and truthful -- manner. Until truth and lies stop being equated equally, we cannot possibly elect the best leaders.

Posted by: Gardenia | September 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Honor what honor ?? McCain has none-and has not since he embraced the far right and Bush(he is running to be "Bushie in Chief")
This man is a disgrace who answer to anything he may have doe wrong begins with "when i was a POW-blah-blah-blah"

Posted by: Chuck S. | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Palin described herself as a pitbull with lipstick. More importantly, on the day Lehman Brothers essentially collapsed, signaling more bad news for investors (including pension funds), the housing industry, etc., the lipstick story was the lead story for many media (actually it was the lead story for a couple of days on Fox News, but they weren't alone)? Move on!!!

Posted by: Sutter | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

We all know our country sucks, right? Our economy is in the crapper??? We are hated??? etc. etc. etc.

Where did you learn all these "facts"??? Commercially driven news sources. They are not the "free press" guarding you, they are the "for profit" press, presenting entertainment and gossip to keep you watching or reading. Who is arbitrating the "facts"?

Here is some perspective:

The gap between richest and poorest had the largest percentage of increase during the Clinton administration.

Currently, even if you use the worst estimate possible, 93% of the American population is employed.

Currently, even if you use the worst estimate possible, 99% of home loans are NOT in foreclosure.

Currently, using any figure you like, the United States is the LARGEST and MOST PRODUCTIVE economy on the planet. By a factor of almost 4 times the next largest.

Currently, the UNITED STATES is the most efficient and responsible user of petro products in the industrialized world. We burn oil and other petro products more cleanly and with less emmissions than anyplace else on the planet. We use petro products in direct proportion to our GDP output.

More people worlwide wish to permanently emigrate to the US than any other destination.

The "facts" the media present to you are intended to create interest (negative or positive). The more inflammatory or outrageous, the better. Ratings and circulation are the basis for advertising dollars. That is all the "free press" cares about. It is a business. They are FOR PROFIT ENTERPRISES!!

They count on your predictable stupidity to tune in to their soap opera. Why don't you prove them wrong. Call them out for the shills that they are. They are prositutes to advertisers, not guardians of our way of life. In fact, the commercial press has done more to harm our collective interests than any other single agent. Think about it

Posted by: Dubs | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

John McCain used to be a great man. In 2000, his "Straight-talk Express" was right on. Now he is the official candidate of the Republican Party, and his campaign has been taken over by the same Republican operatives who directed George Bush's campaigns. Now this once-great man has been reduced to telling outrageous lies in order to get elected.

It is obvious from hearing Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark in context that he was referring to McCain's economic plan, not Sarah Palin. McCain is simply lying.

Posted by: Edward Hall | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Why do you (and the rest of the media lemmings) - even bother reporting on this. Why do we uncover every trivial detail on Sarah's Palin's past and make it a front page story? What happened to fairness and common sense. The main stream media seems to have neither and that is why newspapers are dying!

Posted by: sarno | September 11, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

A comment posted by rljmsilver says that the way Obama paused before delivering the "pig" line and the laughter by the audience convinced him that Obama was targeting Palin. This could be true but I would think it is less compelling if (1) Obama frequently paused while speaking (which he does, sometimes in mid-sentence) and (2) if a political audience does not typically respond with sometime raucous larghter when other people (including McCain) have used the "pig" line which they clearly do. My feeling is that the comment by "rljmsilver" is derived more from his/her gut than from his/her brain, and if the tables were turned and his/her candidate was the accused and not the accuser then he/she would think the accusation to be preposterous.

Posted by: Bob MacKenzie, Detroit, MI | September 11, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Here's a suggestion. Obama should not shy away from the lipstick on a pig line - he should embrace it. It's great and I think his supporters deserved to get fired up too. Come on Barack, just reaffirm "Yes, I said what I meant and I'll say it again, the McCain campaign rhetoric is just an attempt to put lipstick on a pig!" The heck with the GOP BS, what, do they now own common phrases and words because they used one of them last week? Give me a break.

Posted by: Hank | September 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Not every candidate lies! Put their statements to the truth test, and be yourself honest about it. You will see that we have a genuinely honest person in Barack Obama. The lies in this campaign are obvious; they come from the McCain/Palin side. You readers need to be honest and see this. What I am writing here will stand up in every truth test that you can give it.

Posted by: Fred | September 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin '08


A common colloquial expression in the English language, to "buy a pig in a poke," is to make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis.

Posted by: patriot76 | September 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I understand that this reply string is about 'Why Do Lies Prevail?', but the REAL reason that they do, is that most of the commentary/posts on here and in the media in general, have been about continuing the mud that gets slung at each of the 'Big 2' in this Presidential race. But listen everybody, what we need to do is stop listening to the lipstick comments, or the he said she said video clips, and start paying attention to the REAL issues here. Where each of those coices will lead this country, and that is right down the toilet. The only difference, like Randy S stated earlier, will be will it flush right, or left? Both candidates have wonderful sounding stories, Obama wanting to make a better world for everybody, but the unsaid part being, that the US taxpayers will have to pay more, while getting less, thereby devaluing the US Dollar. So that Everybody will be broke. While McCain in his rhetoric towards any country that even looks like it might not like us, keeps saying, 'I'm sorry, there will be more wars', sounding like he has already got invasion and strike options drawn out so that he can be like 'Good Ole Bushy boy' and have some 'victories' under his belt.

Look at Bob Barr, he has clearly stated his opinion about issues and how to solve them. Look him up!!

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because the GOP has dispensed with the idea that there is such a thing as a lie.

George Bush's entire theory of leadership is based on the idea not of executions but of good intentions. It's the same strategy he used to talk his way out of DUI stops, the National Guard, Harken Oil, and any other problematical jam he ever got himself into: I DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO HAPPEN THIS WAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING. IT'S NOT MY FAULT.

He has two Get Out of Jail Free Cards in his wallet and he never hesitates to play them both. In early life it was his famous last name. Today it's that he's been forgiven by God and so he should be forgiven by you. All he needs to do is present the shallow appearance of steely resolve--strutting in a flight suit, a lapel flag pin, that firm set jaw and droppin' the Gs on his Yalie accent--and after that it's someone else's talk, ans someone else's fault, when the economy is tanking and Osama Bin Laden can spend this morning watching the 9/11 memorial services on a big screen TV in a safe house.

Fact: the economy is in the hole.
Fact: Bin Laden is at large.

BUT...Lil'George tried real hard, and so the facts should be set aside. Did he lie about our making progress in Iraq? Did he lie about the state of the economy? Did he lie about bringing the world's worst terrorist to justice? No...because it you think you're telling the truth, it's not a lie.

The GOP has leaped happily through the Looking Glass. There's no such thing as a lie, so Bush can't be a liar.

Posted by: DFC102 | September 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Fred... how can you say that Obama hasnt lied? Have you even heard about the Global Poverty Act that Obama sponsored? It will cost the US Billions, if not Trillions of dollars. Sure, he sounds all smooth and cool on his campaign stops, no-one can fault him for that. But there is no substance to the man. He wants to turn the USA into a country that depends on welfare, and send the tax money that we all pay each year, to help bring the rest of the entire world out of poverty. In doing so, he will single handedly drive the US into even more debt than the current excuse for a president we have.

Check out this link, see for yourself.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

HEY DUBS!! You think our country is in the crapper, huh? Go find another; you let me know, I'll pay your way!

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

McCain and Palin are both fascist pigs.

Posted by: guitaristo | September 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the Pig comment was not as bad as her own opinion of herself. On National TV she called herself a Pitbull with Lipstick. Pitbulls are mean and she is one. She is a female. So she essentially called herself a mean B$tch with Lipstick. I agree.

The only Lipstick going on here is a new shade slapped on bankrupt policies. It's called Radical Right Red.

Posted by: suzy | September 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse


Only liar here is Kinsley......

Posted by: George Dixon | September 10, 2008 11:26 PM "

Oh. You mean McCain DID mean to call Sen. Clinton a pig. Right?

Posted by: tom | September 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for saying that. I have been thinking about the same thing. The media is definitely responsible for prevailing lies. If the information is obviously wrong, they should show the supporting evidence together and say “This is not true”. Rather than sit back and ask commentators “What do you think?” So tired of it. While lipstick story is difficult to prove, other issues like Bridge to Nowhere is beyond question. I understand that the media wants to look objective or unbiased to get a credit for “The most trusted name in news” or “The place for politics”. But this seemingly fair attitude does nothing but harm to American people. Sound judgment is only made available based on correct information.

Posted by: rnish | September 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Guitaristo, you "gentle" liberals have a way with words! McCain/Palin Fascist pigs, huh? Interesting and in-depth analysis: Pigs! Bet you went to Harvard? Or Tijuana U?

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse


WHO CARES ABOUT THE LIPSTICK COMMENT!!! That is a non-issue, meant to get your minds off of the REAL issues. Get over all the mud slinging and pay attention to the actual things that matter. Both McCain and Obama will drive this country further in debt in no time flat. You think theres an economic crisis going on now? Wait til one of those takes the reigns. Start thinking for yourselves and stop letting the media plant those misdirections in your minds.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Oh, but that's not true. Liars do pay a price. Look at Al Gore, 2000. He wasn't a liar, but the media wasn't afraid to say he was. There was no attempt, then, to claim that both Gore and Bush were liars. Only Bush was lying, but only Gore was claimed to be a liar.

Wouldn't it be great if the media actually said that someone was lying when he really was?

Nice article, by the way. When will the narrative -- that McCain is a liar -- actually start in the media? I know you don't care about such things, but it has the added advantage, this time, of being true.

Posted by: eyelessgame | September 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Side A - My record shows that i did blah blah blah so vote for me
Media - wow, look at the screaming crowds about candidate A's claims of blah blah
Candidate B - how dare candidate A make stuff up
MEdia - boy, candidate B sure had a tepid response. Of course,we could vet candidate A's claims for ourself, but investigative reporting is so 20th century
Candidate A - Candidate B stands for xxx evil things
Media - boy that candidate A is sure a fighter - look at the crowd response that got
Candidate B - but none of this is true
Media - well, in all fairness, we put candidate A's claims to the test - turns out that 80% of the people think its true. And its what people think that counts on election day. And we don't want to pick on CAndidate A, after all, we might look unfair. I wonder why candiate B isn't fighting harder, CAndidate A certainly left them lots of room to challenge some of A'as claims. Hey CHarlie, remember when people expected the media to vet claims? THose were the good old days, weren't they......

Posted by: patriot | September 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

McCain becomes more Orwellian with each passing hour. thus the pig.

Posted by: mike | September 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

This is for Anonymous...Here is the problem I have with your presious Obama, the Messiah.

Raising taxes on the rich is probably the dumbest thing you can do to the economy, they are the ones that are generally business owners and are the creators of jobs. (Taxing anyone on their earning is stupid but we have no choice) Initiate a flat tax and everyone pays the same rate. (about 5% as opposed to the 15-35%) even the poor and middle class will step up in the economic food chain, everyone wins. You cannot stimulate the economy by over taxing.

Universal health care run by the government? Ask the citizens of Canada how that is working out for them, they get taxed almost half of their earnings for that program and it is a failure. And don't think that for one second the rich can afford the whole program all by them selves. Here is your solution, take government out of the health care business and de-regulate the policies which make it so you cannot get insurance for your self in another state. Creat a market, and with real competition comes lower prices. People will then be able to support their own health care needs through freedom of choice and kowing your needs.

Government should not be investing our money to find energy sources, they chould be allowing independent contractors to do it for them. We dont need another tax to support that policy. Besides, Obama's energy plan consists of making sure your tires are properly inflated.

Now if I remember correctly, Obama also plans to hike the tax on small business as well, something to the effect of 2/3rds of their earnings to the federal government. How does taking that much of their money help create jobs and expand business? Why not just drastically lower the taxes on small business so that they will keep their businesses here and can afford to create more jobs.

I cant understand why people with a socialist minset think that over governing makes things better. Tax more, spend more, bullsh** the people more. How does that equate to building an economy when the people, ALL people will get their raise in taxes reguardless of what the messiah says. They are LIars people, dont get bought into thinking that more taxes fixes all problems. LESS to no taxes will fix all the problems. Eliminating the federal reserve will fix the value of your dollar and increas it's value. I dont know how much easier it can get. Think for your self, research for yourself, live for your self.

Posted by: mstone | September 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Let me see how this works:

The members of the liberal mainstream media want Barack Obama to win so much that they will say anything, including covering up the lies that have been spewed by the Obama campaign; covering up Obama's policy platform based on his associations with racists, terrorists, criminals, and the utterly corrupt Chicago Daley Democratic machine; and covering Obama's lack of any legislative record on pretty much anything. I can’t prove that, but it seems so obvious to me that it’s more like a fact than an opinion.

Wow. That's how liberals do it? They say stuff and it must be true. I do feel better.

Posted by: SteveIL | September 11, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama never lied about taking public funds, I guess. He has stonewalled the press about his closeness or lack thereof with genuinely skuzzy characters like Rezko and Ayers, and the press, including Michael Kinsley, refuses to investigate whether Obama is lying about this, too. Obama recently had a recovered memory about his thwarted desire for military service back in 1979, something he didn't remember when he was writing either of the two books about himself that he has published, but the press remains rapt in its worship of the persona. McCain doesn't need any lectures from Kinsley about honor or lack thereof - while Kinsley was preparing for his career as a media guy at Harvard, McCain was in a POW camp. Kinsley will vote for any Democrat, no matter how much of a hack or liar he may be, so where does he get off pretending to have the moral authority to judge John McCain's level of honor or honesty?

Nancy Pelosi just reversed herself on offshore drilling, but Michael Kinsley will not use this as a metaphor for flexible Democratic Party principles. He is a writer of considerable dexterity and skill, but the tragedy of his career is that he has wasted his talent on a narrow-minded dislike of the Republican Party and the people it represents. As a result, he's failed to be able to give his own party good advice - the Democrats were the unquestionably dominant force in American electoral politics when Kinsley was starting his career - and, I believe, his journalism will not have a long shelf-life. In fact, it already doesn't.

Posted by: Mark Richard | September 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Classic Rove. Throw a lot of dirt in people's faces and make off with the goods. McCain has lost the honor battle and Gov. Palin is belittling her Christian beliefs by lying about the so called Bridge to Nowhere. Remember when we had a surplus?- it helps clear the fog of lying from the candidates.

Posted by: loo | September 11, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger reason is that no one -- not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters -- cares enough about lying."

Maybe you and others don't care about the lying, but I do. And I am trying to teach my children to care.

How are we suppose to teach our children about morals and values, when the people who want to run this country have none.

We have tolerated this for to long. We have the covernment (broken and corrupt) that we as Americans deserve, because we allow this to happen.

Posted by: BillyH | September 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"But the bigger reason is that no one -- not the media, not the campaign professionals, not the voters -- cares enough about lying"

Only too true. Especially the voters. They split into 3 groups. Red team fans, blue team fans, and don't cares - also called undecideds. When the fans pick up a lie they act the way a fan acts when his team commits a foul. They say "I hope the ref misses it", not "this is outragous, I'll be cheering for the other team from now on. And the don't cares don't care ofcourse.

Posted by: StefanK | September 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I think part of the way the media validates lies is through the structure of reporting and short attention spans.

For example, when Joe Biden commented that people concerned about special needs children ought to be in favor of stem-cell research that can help such kids, the McCain campaign called this a "low blow," which is a lie. But the tag-line on web-sites that led to the story was "Biden comment on special needs children called 'low blow.'" Reading the full story would explain the truth, but just seeing the tag-line (or hearing a "hook" comment from an anchor before the story) perpetuates the lie. The tag line should have said, "McCain attacks Biden comment that stem cell research will help special needs children."

If media types don't want to be part of the lie-perpetuating machine, then reporting should be cognizant of how people consume news and make sure that the _truth_ in reporting is up front, so that even the very brief attention paid by most consumers to news will leave with a kernel of truth.

Another example is Obama's tax plan. Often times the media report that it will raise taxes on the richest in America, leaving quick readers with the deceptive message that the Obama plan is about raising taxes. To avoid perpetuating this deception, headlines and lead lines should begin by saying that the Obama plan will _lower_ taxes for 95% of Americans, and by around $1,000 for the middle class.

Some reporters (and headline-writers) may be unaware that consumers of news often times only read (or listen to) the very beginning of stories, but this is what has made so much of the media an accessory to the deception.

Posted by: Dan E | September 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

BillyH, StefanK...

I'm glad to see a sign of reason and understanding that there REALLY needs to be a change and not lip service. I too, have been very jaded by the political system in this country. Going so far as the last election to having to choose between sandpaper and corn cobs when out of toilet paper.

I found a candidate that deserves some attention and have been trying to spread the word about him. His name is Bob Barr, I ask you to go to and check it out. He not only talks about change, but actually how he plans to implement those changes.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

franco, you nullwit, Dubs is on your side.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"8 years of Bush tax cuts created more tax revenue than 8 years of Clinton tax increase."
Tax cuts don't create revenue, that's a lie that started with Reagan and the Republicans have propegated ever since. The proof is easy to see, every Republican administration since then has added significantly to the debt, cutting taxes, claiming it will increase revenue and then passing the bill for their inability to do math on to the next administration.
Clinton balanced the budget, Bush has set record defecits, you don't have to know more than that to understand your initial statement is nothing more than ill thought out propadanda.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The right wing is spoiling for a fight, so I'm proposing an outright civil war. Who ever wins can have what is left of this sorry sack opf you no what for a government.

Posted by: Brian | September 11, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Once McCain became separated from Palin yesterday, he was back to his usual robotic, monotone self. The campaign tether McCain to Palin's side, because without her or Cindy, McCain is like a Disney robot.

John McCain does not speak for his campaign anymore. Karl Rove and his minions took this out of McCain's hands after he stuck his foot in his mouth once to often this summer. This election is too important to Republicans to leave political decisions up to McCain.

In fact, I think that John McCain has been visited by the body snatchers. He's been replaced by a cyborg.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Kinsley has an unusual knack for cutting to the heart of the matter. This is a ginned up issue to take a potentially damaging talking point away from Obama.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

All this blaming the media for not doing its job... our duty as citizens is to make serious, informed decisions with regard to our elected politicians. Do your research on the issues and make your own choices instead of blaming some supposed boogeyman for coverage being somehow unfair. When will this country stop being so lazy and whiny?

Posted by: Seriously | September 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because of bias and prejudice. We are all bias and prejudice to some degree about everything, but especially politics. We automatically turn off our attention when the opposite political party or view is heard. So, we get the "Swift-Boat" type ads that play to people's predjudice rather than their intellect.

Lies prevail because of the short attention span of the general American public, or else shows, like "Meet the Press" would be in primetime. Even the evening news is usually only 30 minutes and the stories there run very short.

In all of this, eveyone seems to agree with the riddle, "How can you tell a politician is lying?" Answer: You can see their lips move.

Posted by: JohnB1359 | September 11, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The media's strategy with Palin has been: throw everything you can at her and see if anything sticks. If anything seems to stick even a little (eBay plane and bridge), keep pressing those to the full and call any response a lie.

Sorry, Michael. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Even your opening paragraph shows you can't tell the difference between the two.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

An anonymous person wrote, "To Anonymous, who wrote on 11 September at 6:53 AM,

Superb post! Hats off to you. What you wrote is far better than anything I have seen in the MSM for weeks; it really goes to the heart of the matter, illustrating and thus uncovering the hypocrisy of the right wing. What never ceases to surprise me is that the little kittens who vote in this country lap it up like fine cream - you can see their whiskers soaked in it.

Why stay anonymous; you should take created for such a great piece of writing."

I couldn't agree more. That really was a fantastic post. In fact, most of the comments in this thread are excellent. It's good to see so many people with their critical thinking caps on, and nice to see someone at the Post actually calling a lie a lie for a change.

Posted by: Chip_M | September 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse


...But here is the best reason for Obama to keep referring to pigs with lipstick. The insistence by the McCain camp on tying Obama’s innocent phrase to Sarah Palin has now made it impossible for us to NOT think of her when we hear of putting lipstick on a pig. The imagery is powerful. When we think of pigs we see greedy hogs feeding at a trough loaded with earmarks, such as, say dough for a bridge to nowhere. We think of the huge amounts of pork obtained by a small town mayor with connections to the Washington abattoir. No wonder the McCain-Palin camp is scared. Already there are T-shirts out with that wonderful image of a pig with lipstick.

The over-the-top response of McCain in this matter has provided Obama with a golden opportunity. He needs to keep hammering home the message that a McCain presidency would amount to putting lipstick on a pig. He should stick to that imagery for it is one that resonates. If he keeps drumming in that message, the only way the McCain-Palin ticket will win is when pigs fly.

And that’s no (pit)bull.

Posted by: RasKente | September 10, 2008 10:58 PM

I completely agree with you. I think this should become an Obama rallying cry: "Just say no to lipstick on pigs." Republican political stock-in-trade has been bashing straw men and setting the terms of debate. Time for Democrats to reclaim the English language. As minority communities have known for decades, the surest way to reclaim your stake in the debate is to take the words of your detractors and rub them in their faces.

No more lipstick on pigs!! No more Republican incompetence!

Posted by: abqcleve | September 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

HEY DUBS!! You think our country is in the crapper, huh? Go find another; you let me know, I'll pay your way!

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM

Case in point: "Hey, let's pretend this country's in great shape, eh?! And if you can't jump on the bandwagon with rosy visisitudes, then get the hell out." That's the spirit! That's the American way!

I will not allow fascists to take over my country, thank you very much.

Posted by: abqcleve | September 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin wants to play with the big boys, she and the GOP needs to stop whining when things do not go their way or a remark is made. This is politics; grow up.

As a female, I don't think we need special rules or treatment because it make us look weak.

Posted by: jw | September 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse


Get over your allegiances to the 'Party Line' Look at the PEOPLE running for the office. WHO CARES about a lipstick comment, thats just to hide the fact that there is no substance to their platform. BOTH Obama and McCain will drive this country deeper into the sewer. check it out and make up your own minds. He has a plan AND has a way to actually implement it.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because they play to what people want to believe about the candidates.

Posted by: Louis | September 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Finally someone is addressing the biggest problem in this campaign----out and out lying. One side says "abc" on a particular issue and the other says the truth is "def"!! How is the average person supposed to figure out who is telling the truth? The media is the only hope but as you point out they are content with presenting both sides with not very much editorial comment. This is considered "Fair and Balanced" reporting. I call it a cop out.

Posted by: confused08 | September 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Some of you are like really stupid children. Palin is horrible, a liar, a fraud and a scam artist but you whine about lipstick.

If the US elects that pathetic old man and this fundamentalist horror story they deserve the laughs of the world that they have had to endure for all the years of the grinning chimp called Bush.

Senator's Obama and Biden are two mighty fine men with mighty fine brains yet you treat them like fools and the media pander to dopey McCain and his so-called hero status.

Why is he a hero? He was murdering innocent civilians, blowing up their country, it was all illegal and then he was a prisoner. By today's standards when we look at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase and all the other horrors that McCain has agreed to then he should be saying the "gooks" he hates are more civilised and heroic than he will ever be.

Perhaps the US have forgotten that you lost that insane war, and so did Australia.

Posted by: Marilyn | September 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the perpetuation of lies in the political world is fueled by the press. If there is something juicy the media will keep on squizing it to maintain high rating and/or sales;it is like a virus. 24 hours news channels are a good example of it.

The other problem is that many times we have to endure the opinion of the journalist(s), not the straight delivery of the events. It would be great if the facts would be presented straight in front of me , so I could relate them to my own experiences thus to form my relevant opinion.

Yellow press is taking over, kidnapping our ability to make independent decissions. Many of us are suceptible to this, thus skewing the rational approach to politics.
Rational approach to politics is fundamental, because we are the most powerful country in the world...if we screwed it up, the whole world feels it.

Great question Mr.Kinsley. Mine is very simple: Why do we lie?

Posted by: PCM1 | September 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Will the Washington Post soon be registering as a Democrat-based PAC? If not, why not?

Posted by: giscone | September 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

confused08, work with me here. I'm trying to help people get UN-confused and she some light on the situation. All of this lipstick and pig talk is ridiculous. Those are non-issues and all the lying is just covering up the fact that there is no substance to neither Obama NOR McCain. I used to be confused as well, and I found out about Bob Barr. Check him out and MAYBE you might see something you like.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I completely concur. The lies by McCain should be called lies by the media in no uncertain terms. The "L" word needs to be heard when it can be so clearly demonstrated. You've described the problem so well. I hope people will get to understand and get past this type of thing.

Posted by: B. L. Wickwire | September 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

confused08, work with me here. I'm trying to help people get UN-confused and shed some light on the situation. All of this lipstick and pig talk is ridiculous. Those are non-issues and all the lying is just covering up the fact that there is no substance to neither Obama NOR McCain. I used to be confused as well, and I found out about Bob Barr. Check him out and MAYBE you might see something you like.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

But it seems he’d rather lose that honor he’s always going on about than lose the election.

Well, it is all too apparent to all paying attention to the McCain of the last fourteen months, and the McCain today that he left his honor (if he ever had any), on the floor of that prison cell in Hanoi.

Posted by: str8up | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Whenever liberal Democrats begin to feel uncomfortable at election time and the possibility they will lose another one, they pull out the old chestnut about somebody's lies. It never fails. If the worst happens and they actually lose, "lies" become a crescendo. Liberals are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause and the perfidy of their enemies that it never dawns on them that they lose because the American people are not leftwingers like them. It's really as simple as that.

Posted by: mhr | September 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I think it's pretty clear McCain's in the process of selling his soul for the White House.

Posted by: Loren in Iowa | September 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

You are so right about the media's squeamishness over calling out a lie for fear of appearing biased. A perfect case in point is the following line from today's Post editorial on the lipstick flap:

"and certainly the Obama campaign has not been above such tactics."

I'd say this is objectively untrue. Point to one example where the Obama campaign has resorted to the mudslinging and lying that has been spewing from the McCain campaign of late. Yet the Post editorial writers presumably felt compelled to insert such a throw-away line because it makes them feel they are being objective. Balanced maybe, but as for objectively commenting on the facts -- not so much.

Posted by: John A. | September 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Dubs wrote "The gap between richest and poorest had the largest percentage of increase during the Clinton administration."

Care to cite a source for that?

Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels disagrees with your claim:

Posted by: Chip_M | September 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

abqcleve, from pigs to fascists, huh? You libs have a way with words. Must be your Harvard edcuation. Your country? What have you done for it? Served in the military? or are you just sipping your liberal latte?

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Because stupid people believe them!...There are more of them than not. That is why republican's will probably win!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have nothing to say about the issues, so they make an issue out of nothing.

They beat the drums and blow the trumpets calling for their troops to make battle. Charge! They know full well that truth is lost is the chaos, and noise of the battle field.

They're jerks, but it works.

Posted by: Color Wars | September 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"abqcleve, from pigs to fascists, huh? You libs have a way with words. Must be your Harvard edcuation. Your country? What have you done for it? Served in the military? or are you just sipping your liberal latte?"

you see?...this mind set is the problem in OUR country! I cannot wait for selective extintion (or, are you one of those nut jobs that believe in creationism) to take these fools out!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

it's almost as if McCain is hypnotized or inoculated to the outright misrepresentations said repeatedly by his choice for VP. He's squandering all the good will people have toward him for his courage in Vietnam.

Posted by: psk | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Is this for real? Some of you really believe that Obama and Biden don't lie? How about, "the surge worked beyond anyone's expectations." What a lie! It only worked beyond HIS expectations, but he still won't admit he was wrong and McCain was right.

Or what about Joe "plagiarized speeches" Biden? What a laugher!

Oh, but the media should be "unbiased" and say that Republicans lie and Democrats don't? This sounds like the start of a one-party system. Forget freedom of the press. The press in only allowed to shill for Democrats from now on.

How long after that before Republicans are sent to the Gulags?

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

from pigs to fascists to nutjobs...hey, you hiding under a rock, if you want to believe that you're the result of pure primordial slime, fine with me. Must be that Harvard education. Why so angry and bitter? This country is great because veterans and Soldiers made it great. What have you done for you country, except whine and complain?

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Republicans love to see their "leaders" lie to the enemy and get away with it, either because the enemy believes it or because the enemy is degraded in the public eye, or because Republicans just feel they are one up, for the moment. They go dancing around symbolically firing their weapons at the sky, whooping and hollering. Democrats watching all this are mystified, especially when they are the ones who Republicans suppose to be the enemy. What does one do if one disapproves of this kind of behavior? Don't put anyone who behaves like that in a position of authority. Can you do that? In a democracy, only if you have the numbers.

Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | September 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I thought McCain never had a chance to win the election until I read the worried rubbish written by the Obama left media and the blogs. If this true hero with a great reformist running mate not only has a chance but is a very strong chance that is why the hate mail is as vile as it is. Keep up the great work John and Sarah the world needs people with your integrity in the white house. Why did the left who heard his remarks laugh it was not a joke they read it as a low down remark to Sarah Palin. How out of touch is this man and the left media along with his campaign

Posted by: Bob /Australia | September 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans believe the " lipstick on a pig, but still a pig " comment applies to their precious pit bull (without who McSame looks like a puppy); If I were Obama, I would agree with the Republicans every chance I had; they're the ones that made the comparison first.

Posted by: PSoto | September 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

What a subject for the campaign to focus on, eh? This strategy (all zero substance, all the time) has carried the last 2 presidential elections. It is clearly being run out yet again. The rest of the world must be getting pretty worried. I know I am.

Posted by: Bob W | September 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I've seen several people now advancing the argument that Obama's "Pig" comment must have been about Sarah BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE LAUGHED!

What bunk! That tired old phrase ALWAYS gets a laugh - that's why politicians keep using it. McCain uses it more than Obama. One of his advisors used it for the title of HER BOOK.

Sarah Palin wasn't issued Trademark protection on the word "lipstick" just because she made a joke about it in a speech, people. We aren't talking about Celebrity Sarah every time we use the word. It's just a word.

Posted by: Martimr1 | September 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTED (see corrections below)
McCain Camp Offended by Obama Pig Remarks
Presidential candidate neither porcine nor cross-dressing, aides say

By M K Trout
1 hour, 54 minutes ago

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) - Staff for Republican presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday in a statement that Democratic Rival was attempting to shift focus off issues with "scurrilous lies and playground insults."

The flap arises in the wake of Mr. Obama's use of a colloquialism about putting lipstick on a pig to describe the policies of the McCain campaign.

The McCain camp originally indicated that Mr. Obama was making sexist remarks regarding the Republican running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The latest volley indicates that they have changed tactics on the metaphor.

In a statement, campaign manager Steve Schmidt stated, "We are willing to take Sen. Obama at his word that he was not speaking about Gov. Palin in his comments on Tuesday. At the same time, though, we do not feel it makes the comments any less offensive that he was calling Sen. McCain both a pig and a transvestite in a single sentence. Sen. Obama must stop his campaign of scurrilous lies and playground insults and focus on what's important to our nation -- lies about earmarks and more giveaways to big corporations."

Former McCain rivals were no less vocal in their condemnation of the junior Senator from Illinois.

"As someone who is often compared to [cartoon loser] Droopy Dog and [children's cereal magnate] Frankenberry, I understand how these shallow insults can sting," former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson, who had previously challenged Sen. McCain for the Republican nomination, said in a hastily assembled conference call with reporters. "The man lived in a box in Vietnam for five years, but that doesn't make him a pig. This is a new low for the Democrat party."

Looking at the other side of the metaphor, former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani released a statement saying "As we remember the victims of 9/11 and how that day changed our country forever, it is unconscionable that a community organizer would accuse Sen. McCain -- an American hero -- of wearing lipstick... not even if the lipstick tube were shaped like the World Trade Center twin towers which we all -- as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans -- watched fall on that fateful 9/11 day."

In an odd twist, Giuliani's statement went on to say that McCain would never do anything that resembles cross-dressing "because he knows he couldn't look half as good as I do in drag. 9/11."

The Obama campaign's response to the latest kerfuffle was an uncharacteristically terse written statement of their own. The full text of the statement read, "We're speechless. This is astounding. If the voting public is so stupid as to buy this, we're all [expletive]ed anyway."


CORRECTION: A previously issued edition of this article incorrectly identified Frankenberry as a children's cereal mascot. Mr. Berry's press secretary indicates that, while he appears on the box it is as owner of Frankenberry, Inc., thus he is more properly identified as a children's cereal magnate. We regret the error.

(Editing by Eric T. Red)

* Email Story
* IM Story
* Printable View
Yahoo! Buzz


Posted by: Kurt Vonnegut | September 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans believe the " lipstick on a pig, but still a pig " comment applies to their precious pit bull (without who McSame looks like a puppy); If I were Obama, I would agree with the Republicans every chance I had; they're the ones that made the comparison first!

Posted by: PSoto | September 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"from pigs to fascists to nutjobs...hey, you hiding under a rock, if you want to believe that you're the result of pure primordial slime, fine with me. Must be that Harvard education. Why so angry and bitter? This country is great because veterans and Soldiers made it great. What have you done for you country, except whine and complain?"

what is it with Harvard U? didn't the baboon that unfortunatley sits in the white house go there for business graduate course? you voted him in...good job!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Maybe lies prevail because people are liers and they like to "see themselves in their candidates." --- another good reason for the brokers of God's Redemption to steer clear of the muddled expedience of politics.

Posted by: mammyyel | September 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

One cannot be a successful politician without being an accomplshed liar.

Posted by: Bob Field Toronto | September 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

It's not enough to call a lie a lie. Every lie conceals an agenda. The agenda is probably not fit for public knowledge if it has to be concealed. The agenda is what needs to be revealed and criticized. The problem with this strategy is that those who lie do it because they have succeeded doing it for so long. It may be that none of those with power disapproves of the agenda. The accumulation of these kinds of behavior is the source of violent social revolution.

Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | September 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"The accumulation of these kinds of behavior is the source of violent social revolution."

Yeah, like the People's Revolution in China. That's where we're heading folks. Liberal elites and the media will soon see it as right that they should imprison and kill their political enemies and replace American democracy with a one-party system, that being the Socialist Democratic party. You saw the beginnings of it at the Republican convention with violent anarchist protestors who even disrupted speeches. It's only going to get worse.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey, you hiding under a rock, now it's baboon? Your vocabulary suggests you're a Harvard graduate. Bet you can't write a sentence without using a pejorative. And yes, even NoBama went to Hravard instead of serving his country in uniform. Now he wants to be commander-in-chief of the Armed forces? what is he (and you) smoking?? I know, I know, don't tell me...

Posted by: franco | September 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Supreme Court doesn't matter after all. Maybe we don't need to worry about who exactly runs our government, or what they actually believe, as long as Karl Rove's clones are writing the script. Nothing to worry about there...

Posted by: Don't worry, be happy... | September 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

As your supreme Commander and Chief, I will cut military spending and cut our armed forces. Afterall, after I am elected there will be NO WAR. Becuase everyone loves me.

After I am elected POTUS we will all have jobs, have free eneergy for our cars and homes. Everyone will go to college for free and get free healthcare. The world will love us ( even France! ) sexism and racism will cease to exist.
And best of all, you can all worship me as the devine one who has delviered you from evil and 4 more years of the Devil... AKA BUSH

The price- give up your freedom, give up all of your money and give it to me ( the govt will take care of you afterall that is what communism is all about )and bow before the hand of the great "O" ( Obama not Oprah! )

Sincerely, Barak Hussein Obama

Posted by: vito | September 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The republicans working the refs - now that's a surprise...

Posted by: fool me once... | September 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Here is another hackneyed expression for all the liberals..."the chicken's are coming home to roost", "you reep what you sow" How many times have the liberals gone crazy when someone misspoke or uttered a phrase that could be considered remotely offensive to some one (see-Joe Biden "clean" etc.)? So I am lost, is the argument really about language, intent, or is it about that it sucks the tables have turned? What you are seeing is how Sen Obama handles pressure...what do you think?

And you know he meant what he said to mean what everybody thinks he meant, CONTEXT. It doesn't matter how many times the phrase has been uttered only in what CONTEXT.

Posted by: csterling | September 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

You forgot the bit about how the oceans will start going down and the earth will be healed!


Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

To take the attention away from Palin's obvious flaws, they are using sexism.
To intelligent rational people this is obvious. To people who hear what they want to hear or drink the kool-aid, they will buy into this.

It is a great propaganda tool if you can pull it off. And they are currently pulling it off.

To be able to get the Hillary votes for a woman whose views are so far off of Hillary's, that is a great achievement.
Either that or women in America are easily duped or truly dont care about politics and only gender. At this point it appears to be both.

Posted by: Brilliant | September 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Maybe some brave journalist (I know, an oxymoron) can ask McCain when he lost his sense of honor. I know, fat chance.

Posted by: mendel | September 11, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Obviously the conservative posters aren't going to think very deeply about this, but here is what happened (very obviously if you are objective and/or not ideological): Obama was talking off the cuff about McCain's claim to be a "change agent." He used a phrase about putting lipstick on a pig that he has used many, many times before. One or two people in the audience immediately associated the lipstick reference with Palin's recital of the old joke, and started applauding. Others, including Obama, immediately picked up on the "association" he had "made" and the place erupted into a standing ovation. Meanwhile, Obama realized that he had made a "mistake" that the propagandists on the Repug side could exploit, hesitated, then added another comparison about wrapping old fish in newspaper can't hide the stink. But the damage was done. He didn't read from a text, but spoke direct to the people, used a phrase that idiots could raise a ruckus about, and here we are. Anyone who thinks Obama is stupid enough to refer to a female opponent as a pig simply has no clue about how careful politicians need to be - and are - in this day and age. And to say he "should" be more careful is idiotic, like nobody ever misspeaks. Get over it, dummies.

Posted by: WaPoReader | September 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Bravo, Mr. Kinsley. The scales have fallen from your eyes. Other pundits have seen what is happening, but then immediately exonerate Mr. McCain, saying, "oh, I know him, he surely wouldn't approve of this filth." Slowly, one by one, they are realizing their naive stance. There is no way McCain doesn't know what's going on in his own campaign. His honor is long gone.

Posted by: mightybacon | September 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

To rljmsilver and rugs;

Oink, oink!!!

Vote Obama '08

Posted by: muppet | September 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

We are all doomed....

Posted by: EB | September 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse


I am in complete agreement, Senator Obama should use the "Lipstick Pig" phrase ad nauseum to remind everyone that Senator McCain = President Bush = 4 more years of ineffective domestic and foreign polices.

In answer to the original question, telling a lie is easy as it takes many fewer words than the many words required to explain the truth. Thus for the uniformed and/or the intellectual lazy, lies are more easy to remember and accept than it is to give deep thought in understanding the truth.

However, I will say that "journalists", as part of their responsibility to the public, need to get back to calling a lie a lie rather than just being content serving as the medium for its distribution.

Posted by: Caryl | September 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

B. Hussein Obama.

Posted by: M Kinsley | September 10, 2008 11:37 PM
--------------------------------------------Yeah, that's a good idea, let's vote according to the persons name....

M Kinsley........what an idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

If there is a culprit in this flap, it must be not McCain, but Politico reporter Amie Parnes, who and reported that "the crowd apparently took the 'lipstick' line as a reference to Palin"

I think Daniel Finkelstein who blogs for the Times (UK) (hardly a McCain shill)got it right -- Obama's folks have been making fun of Palin's effective "lipstick" line, and he was trying to be clever.

Of course McCain's outrage is artificial. So is Obama's professed outrage at this "distraction" from the real issues -- like how many houses McCain owns.

Posted by: mark G | September 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God. The Democrats are the masters of disingenuous moral outrage. In fact it's the whole basis of most campus political 'discussion.' And you have the cojones to blame McCain for this phenomenon.

Posted by: PJ | September 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure when the transformation first began, but it is clear now that the John McCain of 2008 is nowhere near the John McCain of 2000. What a loss. I really liked that guy.

For him to seize on Obama's comment this way when he has made the same comment before is rank hypocrisy. He should be ashamed.

Posted by: John John | September 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because truth is bitter to swallow

American people cannot handle the truth.

On the 7th anniversary of 9/11 we are still looking for truth regarding the missing planes at Pentagon and the field in Pennsalvania. To this day we do not have a independent inquiry into what really happened at the two locations.

Lies we swallowed as citizen hoping to hear the truth regarding the two incident have not changed the fact

Bush/McClain has embelished the lies as seen in past 5 days on the repetion of lies, more lies and damn lies about the Palin position on Bridge to No where.

The crowd keep cheering without knowing the truth

Posted by: Roism007 | September 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Oh, puhleeeeze. You know Obama was poking the pit bull on this one. And the pit bull and her buddy reacted exactly as anticipated: snarl, whine, growl. It's the same game that the right-wing folks play when they refer to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. They never refer to that OTHER guy named Hussein, but you know what they are up to. Nobody ever gets snickers when they refer to John SIDNEY McCain.

Posted by: n_mcguire | September 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
11 September 2008

John McCain, Sarah Palin and their handlers have no qualms whatsoever deceiving the American people with their blatant and shame-faced lies because cynically they must believe that a lie repeated over and over again eventually takes on the quality of truth!

They have apparently no problem trying to brainwash American voters with lies; as far as they are concerned, the end--which is winning, justify the means.

Thus the political discourse has degenerated into one side telling those blatant and bizarre lies, and the opposing side compelled to go on the defensive--if not to retaliate in kind.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

So the belief is that a candidate for the U.S. presidency, from either party, would think it was a positive campaign move to refer to the opposition's female vice-presidential candidate, however indirectly, as a "pig"? There are people who actually believe that Barack Obama calculatedly (and of course every scripted remark from any candidate is carefully calculated) decided that it would play well in the various media and with potential voters if he referred to a woman as a "pig"?

Man, the American electorate is dumber than even the worst assessments make them out to be.

Even if the remark did refer to Palin, which it did not in any way, shape or form, it should be obvious to anyone that it is not true. I've never seen her wear lipstick.

Posted by: Mike D. | September 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because truth is bitter to swallow

American people cannot handle the truth.

On the 7th anniversary of 9/11 we are still looking for truth regarding the missing planes at Pentagon and the field in Pennsalvania. To this day we do not have a independent inquiry into what really happened at the two locations.

Lies we swallowed as citizen hoping to hear the truth regarding the two incident have not changed the fact
Roism007 wrote:

"Bush/McClain has embelished the lies as seen in past 5 days on the repetion of lies, more lies and damn lies about the Palin position on Bridge to No where.

The crowd keep cheering without knowing the truth."

Excellently written. Reminds me of the opening passages in Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury."

Posted by: Mike D. | September 11, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Wake Up Americia! It is the same old tactics. They did this with Gore and Kerry and look where we are today. They use attack ADs and they constantly talk about nothing. They give board generalization. They never talk about sepecifics. They try and distract you from the real issues that matter, to little issues that they exaggerate or just out and out lie about. Enough is enough! Please let them know we are not dumb and stupid. We not only know what day and time it is, we also know what party is responsible for where we are at today. No matter how you try and dress it up or diguise it, it is the same thing. Your actions speak louder than your words. We have major problems that need major answers not the spin of the week or in your case day. They are you McCain/Palin and your Republican Party. I am talking about the real McCain not the let me tell you one more time how I was a prisoner of war McCain or I am a Mavrick McCain. Everyone one has acknowledge on more than one occasion that you are an honorable man. They should say you use to be an honorable man. An honrnable man would not do the tactics and make up lies you did just to get elected but you have. You say you are a marvick. You use to be a marvick. You stop being a marvick when you knew you did not have your party backing so then you changed and you did what ever you needed to do to get the nomination including picking a woman with a lot of baggage and serious issues of her own. You can not vote with Bush 90% of the time and in the next breath say I am the man of change. Like John Kerry said You need a debate with yourself before you can debate Obama. This election is not about a war hero, this election is not about a woman candadate, this election is not about trying to tear down the opposition person. You are the man that is always saying you put country first. Well it seems like the McCain we see now is not the McCain that gave so much to this country and for this country when he was young. This McCain puts himself first everytime. This McCain wants to win this election at any cost no matter what the cost is to the country. To the media you also need to hold yourselves accountable for letting the Republican Party get away with playing the same old games everyttime and you joining them in it. I can remember when you all went after Bill Clinton like a house on fire. All he did was have sex in his office. I am not saying that was right. But compared to taking this country to war with a lie and not being made to pay the consequences is mind boggling. I wonder how future generations will view this country when they read about this. We were willing to impeach a president for lying to a grand jury about having an affair. But nothing was done about a President that lied to get us to go to war. The Americian people have paid a high enough price more than once because we did not ask the tough questions so we made the wrong choices. This time give me someone who is indeed the man for change, who have been saying the same thing, from day one. Who gave us step by step details of what he plans to do. Not one who changes his pitch as offten has he changes his audiences. McCain and the Republicans have had more than enough times to get it right. The world is looking at us to see if we really mean it, when we say want the respect we use to have and took for granted. Letting them down and more importanly, letting ourselves down by being bullied into making the wrong choice again its not only un consititutional, it is un American.

Posted by: B | September 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The demo pols have been lieing constantly since failing to steal the election in 2000. NAZI(socialist) Goebbels said if you lie enough,people will start believig it.
Nobama talked without a teleprompter and screwed up. He wanted to put down Sarah. No doubt about that.
Nobama has an ugly mouth.Lipstick might help,but he still wouldn't have any experience at leadership. But for political parties,smart pols and people wouldn't be supporting him.

Posted by: Jack Kinch (1uncle) | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Let's see how McCain likes hearing from a former cellmate at the Hanoi Hilton. Watch
and see and hear from a man who knew McCain at Annapolis and later as one of over 600 POWs like himself; this man is now 70, well educated (maybe a deterrent for some as they may be anti-educated) and presents his views without hesitation; he knows well what it means to be in war; his metals are proof of that.

Also other videos on McCain are at same webpage. Pass it on.

See what others than the Mainstream Media think of John McCain, the POW storied candidate of the Bush interests. Then forwarded it to all your email contacts especially those who might see the light about this man of honor, the candidate of the Bush interests.

Posted by: P. Mumbas | September 11, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"If media types don't want to be part of the lie-perpetuating machine, then reporting should....."

Well now, that's a pretty big IF, isn't it. If it weren't so pathetic I'd laugh at the earnestness of some of these posters. Of course they know they're stirring up culture wars again - its the only way they can win.

If the American people are too stupid to realize that supply side economics/tax cuts for the rich have historically only further enriched the President's friends and family (President Reagan and Bush) while they pay twice the price in depressed wages and government bailouts, then they will stay economically depressed. If they are so stupid that they didn't listen to John McCain when he was calling them whiners about their paychecks and they believe his sudden reversal about fixing an economy he didn't think was broken until two weeks ago, they will get only more of the same.

If the people couldn't be bothered looking at who Bush's foreign policy advisers are, they will not know that they are the same ones advising McCain today. If they didn't see the light after 5 years of buying W's hype that victory in Iraq was just around the corner, they won't grasp now that victory in Iraq is fistfulls of cash away, not bombs and bullets away, cash that could have been used to make us energy independent.

If people don't grasp that fossil fuel dependence is our nation's greatest national security risk, that we already sell oil abroad because American oil companies can get a better price for it in Japan so more drilling is far from a guarantee of lower prices in AMerica, that running cars on natural gas means less to heat houses, that running cars by recharging them on the power grid means we need more power for the grid - power that has to come from somewhere - that fossil fuel is finite, then they will get what they deserve. If they fail to grasp that the next superpower won't be the one with the most bombs, it will be the one who is energy independent, then they won't live in the next superpower.

If they fail to realize that having the most powerful military in the world doesn't efficiently protect us from a few Davids armed with suitcase nukes to use on Goliath (carried in through ports and borders that are STILL unprotected from this threat), then they will never be safe.

If they bought that a Repub president was going to change the tone in Washington 8 years ago, and are buying it again even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the people pushing the agenda (i.e. not the Candidate) are still the same ones, they will get what they deserve.

So, lets fight about lipstick on pigs, OK?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Bush then recited his goals: a free society that could defend, sustain and govern itself while becoming a reliable ally in the global war on terrorism. He added a dreary assessment, saying, "It seems Iraq is incapable of achieving that."
Bush knew he was lying.
and so did most of you.
and yet you defend him.

Posted by: vp | September 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of the republicans trying to play americans as fools. I am even more sick of the fact that it sometimes works.

The time for the media to start telling the people the truth is long overdue. McCain is lying in order to get elected.

Please share this with other people.

Posted by: wkuinkc | September 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The big picture, Woodward said, "is that [Bush] never found a way to level with the American people and say, 'Look, I know it's not working. We're going to fix it.' He would go out and say it's tough, but then he would say things like we're absolutely winning, we're winning -- when he knew we were not, when the generals knew we were not."


We all knew we weren't winning.
but some of you thought you'd be embarassed if you admitted it.

There were no WMDs.
Spreading Democracy is not why we went to Iraq.

The US Attorneys were fired because they wouldn't joint the corruption of the Republican Party.

Why do you continue to believe the lies?

Mr. Bush does NOT listen to the Generals.

We are in Iraq for OIL.

Mr. Libby should be in prison as should Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Goodling.

Posted by: vp | September 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think that Obama did mean to call Palin a pig. And you know what? So what. If she can't handle a little dig from the man whose reputation she spent an hour or so trashing at the convention, then she really isn't up to the job of VP.

Maybe she could be whiner in chief? Let's just hope that Russian, North Korean, and Iranian leaders aren't mean to poor Ms. Palin... she might just collapse under the strain!

Posted by: SG | September 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey, woody2471 how dare you characterize Gov. Palin as a "white-trash lipstick pig from Alaska."

She has clearly identified herself. As a female pit bull. So if anything, she's a white-trash lipstick b|tch from Alaska.

Posted by: A noun, a verb and POW. and now a pit bull with lipstick, too. | September 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus"

This should put an end once and for all to the McSame/Palin claim that the surge was a "success". In this Article, Gen. Petraeus states: "that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle". General Petraeus also said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed". Finally, General Petraeus "said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan." Well, that military know-it-all, Johnny McSame, has a lot of explaining to do to the American people. If he can't tell the difference between "victory" and something less, than he is definitely not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Obama/Biden 08!!!

Posted by: caliguy55 | September 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to fact-checking before reporting something as news? The sequence yesterday was:

1. Obama made his lipstick remark.
2. The McCain campaign put out their contrived interpretation of what he meant by the remark.
3. The press ran with it.

Did everyone who now works in the news media skip Journalism 101? That's where they might have been told that for any respectable journalist, Step 3 should have been a call to Obama to ask if there was any truth to the contrived explanation. Upon determining that there was no reason to believe that there was any truth to it, the story should have died without being reported.

You're dead wrong that people don't care about lying. What the press needs to get its arms around is the damage it is doing to the country by refusing to print lies.

Posted by: pgp | September 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Whoops. I meant to say by NOT refusing to print lies.

Posted by: pgp | September 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"This should put an end once and for all to the McSame/Palin claim that the surge was a "success"."

That's funny, because even Obamamessiah said it was. So why don't you go tell him to keep his big mouth shut for a change? (pun intended)

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

mccain is a failed fighter pilot , not the kind of person we need as a president.

Posted by: ed f | September 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Becky | September 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

One could write a thesis on "Why lies prevail", and indeed no doubt countless such exist in hallowed halls. "That lies prevail", however, is more than adequately documented.

Perhaps the ultimate culprit is our culture of all-pervading advertising. We are so used to ads that habitually lie, exaggerate, trash the competition etc. our senses are dulled.

It's naive to think the skills of Madison Avenue will not be used in the political arena, and indeed, political ads are usually squeezed in between 'standard commercials', so why should we not apply the same standards to them as to any others?

One party is usually better at it, or less scrupulous than the other, and that party is not always the GOP. Recall JFK's ad flashing up a picture of Nixon sporting that infamous 5 o'clock shadow, with caption 'Would you buy a used car from this man?' How's that for character assassination?

I don't think there's much the media can do about this retroactively. The emergence of 'fact checks' is surely positive, but ineffectual because attack ads 'work' on an emotional level. They create an impression of mistrust. Even if a person discovers later that the ad was based on lies, the impression is not entirely eradicated, though another impresssion may be superposed on the first -- that whoever ran the ad is not an honest person!

This would seem to be Obama's current strategy. 'People are not stupid. They'll get it', repeated again and again is supposed to evoke an negative image in advance of an attack ad being run. It is Obama's attempt to get 'ahead of the game'.

Will it work? Is it enough? Obama is scheduled to have lunch with Bill Clinton, round about now in fact. Bill knows a thing or two about countering attack ads. I expect Barack will be getting quite an earful!

Posted by: Rob Bentley | September 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Why do lies prevail?

Because, as Jack Nicholson might say, the voters of this country can't handle the truth.

Posted by: mnjam | September 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because the MSM repeats them like a parrot with a steno-machine without saying the following: "The candidate's statement is a lie"

Like this:

"Palin's assertion that she was against the bridge to nowhere is a lie. She lobbied for the bridge and used to money to build an access road to the planned bridge's location"

Other things the MSM should print:

"Palin's assertion that she loves America is suspect because her husband signed the family up as members of the secessionist, US hating Alaska First Party (AKIP) and the Governor herself videotaped a welcoming address for delegates attending their secessionist political convention"

"Palin has reached out from government positions frequently to have citizens fired such asthe librarian who refusecd to ban the books Palin wanted off of the shelves."

Posted by: JBE | September 11, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The real issue is the ignorance and gullibility of the American people! Many are daily victims of charismatic liars, cheats, and thieves formenting hatred, evil, and worse in the name of "Jesus". Many more are numbed consumers, absorbing the marketing lies of shoddy products, foreign goods, Presidents, Wars, Congressman, and the great American fairy tales of our Constitutional Democractic country when in fact we have become a textbook example of Fascism and bigotted theocracy! We trumpet our high morals as we torture, render, maim, imprison, murder, assasinate, terrorize, and make war! We spend millions to save unwanted impregnated cells as we allow millions of real people to starve to death that could be saved! We imagine some nonsense notion of God can justify the most vile human acts! Simply stated, most Americans are violently insane!

Posted by: Chaotician | September 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I think lies actually work (see GW Bush four years ago) because Republicans and conservative leaning voters want to vote that way. After the past 8 years, those voters understand they and the country are worse off. So what do they do? They grasp at anything they can to avoid saying they made a mistake, even if it's based on a lie.

Frankly, I didn't think Senator McCain would stoop that low. Very disappointing.

Posted by: Jackson | September 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"But that shouldn’t let John McCain off the hook. He says he’d rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he’d rather lose that honor he’s always going on about than lose the election."

Too late, Mr. Kinsley. By selling out every political principle he used to espouse to the far-right wing of the Republican party -- and by sacrificing his sense of decency and fair play on the altar of Rovian, Swift Boat politics -- John McCain has already surrendered whatever scraps of honor he had left after the 2000 campaign. The photo of him embracing the man who savaged his family during the millennial primaries is proof enough of that -- the maverick has been replaced by a man who would sell his soul to be president.

Posted by: GrouchoMarxist | September 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It is apparent from the majority of the posts here that many people refuse to tolerate or believe the republican smear machine. Ignore the hacks who are using the most outrageous sort of nonsense to justify their views. Why dignify them with a response? Heck most of them believe the earth is only 10,000 years old and Fred and Dino really did play together. Sisters and Brothers today is the 7th anniversary of the deaths of over 2700 of our brothers and sisters. Since then almost 4000 more of our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers and our children have died in a war against a country that had nothing to do with our original loss. In 7 years we have rescinded our stand against torture that had been in place since Washington commanded the Army. We have shredded our constitution and have willingly given up our right to privacy, a fair and speedy trial, to confront our accusers and to examine the evidence against us. Why have we done all this? Because we were AFRAID that what happened 7 years ago will happen again. The question before us now is Where do we go from here? Do we continue to live in paralyzing fear or do we face our fears and learn to overcome them? Despite all that has happened these last seven years I have not given up hope that in what may be the darkest hour of our Democracy we all still have the will and the capacity to save ourselves from the abyss and change our course. YES WE CAN.

Posted by: Pablo | September 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

It was so blatant a lie that you couldn't imagine that the McCain campaign would go ahead, make another ad and put it on air.

I happened to watch Obama making those comments. He did not even utter the name, Pallin !

They included Katie Couric in their ad for some reason. After CBS complained they had to withdraw. They trimmed Obama's comment to make people think he was referring to Palin. That shows desperation on the part of McCain's campaign.

How about when McCain himself used the same phrase to describe Hillary Clinton's health plan ? That wasn't objectionable ?? Or, anything goes if it's Hillary ?

I can media trying to be fair and balanced and all that, but opting to let such things slide (because BOTH sides do it) is a cop-out and a disservice to public,if that's what they thought they were doing.

Media can not feel cowed down and still qualify as FREE press.

Posted by: Cantabb | September 11, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"You're dead wrong that people don't care about lying. What the press needs to get its arms around is the damage it is doing to the country by refusing to print lies."

The press is not in business for the purpose of enlightening the American people. The media are privately owned companies that exist to make money for their owners. If they don't make money, the owners close or sell them and invest in something else.

Ratings decide if people are more interested in watching truth or titillation. The media merely reflect who we are as a nation.

Truth doesn't sell soap. Moral outrage won't change the media. Changing the channel will. Perhaps it is meaningul that FOX has had a steady decline in its market share in that prized 28-54 age group and CNN is beginning to challenge them much more overall. On the other hand, last night CNN kept a shameful vigil worthy of an anxious world awaiting an overdue spaceshuttle waiting for Palin's plane to land in Fairbanks so she could read canned remarks off a teleprompter, intro'd by a giddy female "reporter" with an obvious schoolgirl crush on Palin, so, they just lost me. MSNBC went so far to the left I gave CNN a try. CNN failed miserably. Think I'll shut off the TV and listen to NPR - I'd watch Leherer if I could stay awakr during it.

Posted by: patriot | September 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because people would rather believe the lie than the truth. There is a time that emotionalism has to stop and look at things for what they are. People have to stop listening to all the fear mongering and the fabrications and start really hearing what is going on.

Looking at this election, I have seen nothing but deception from Senator McCain. Not to mention the hijacking of the Democrat's campaign slogan and ideas (Since when did McCain talk about change - he voted with Bush 90% of the time).

I actually started out this election leaning toward McCain, not because of his ability to do the job but because I felt that the Republican Party stood for things that I felt and still feel are important to me (I am an evangelical).

My change came when I started looking at the way McCain was running his campaign. No real plan to do anything except for winning the election through trickery. Doing whatever was necessary to win.

If you like the lie, vote the lie. If you want change then get out of your comfort zone and stand for it.

Posted by: CW | September 11, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a petty, gutless, pandering Washington insider. Add clueless. Palin was the pair he needed and he was forced to surgically attach them. Just watch him on the campaign trail stand there sheepishly longing for 'mama' while she delivers his speech.

Posted by: Westerner | September 11, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Typos in my last post:

"Pallin" for Palin [Sorry, I was not being a 'sexist']

"I can UNDERSTAND media WAS trying to be fair...."

Posted by: Cantabb | September 11, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

So now Obama whines that the campaign should be about the "issues". What issue was he referring to when he made the pig comment? He was either bashing McCain or Palin and now he has to try to explain which one. See what happens when you stray from the issues?

Posted by: Scooter1962 | September 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The best way to deal with campaign lies is to present the truth, pure and simple, and that is the media's job.

Posted by: Greg | September 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain's campaign may have overreacted and misinterpreted what Obama said, but to claim that McCain is a liar and fraud is just committing the same sin his campaign committed. Caution if you don't know what's in someone's mind.

Posted by: dco | September 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Scooter, You miss the point. So let me help you. Obama was pointing out to slow learners like you that McCain was the same old stuff and calling it 'change' doesn't mean he has anything new. Yes it was all about issues, son. All about issues. Now please go back to your reading lesson.

Posted by: Denverite | September 11, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Lies prevail because the GOP has determined it can make its own reality. Once the lie has been said, no matter how outrageous, it is out there. Cable news will yammer about it, right wing hate radio will spread it, it will go viral in email. The zombie lie won't die because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

It is aided by the fact the many in the GOP base think that all media is liberally biased. As a result, anything reported in the MSM can be discounted and the GOP base is resistant to facts as a result. It is no wonder most Bush supporters still think Iraq had a direct connection to 9/11 and the Saddam had WMD.

Facts are that GOP policies have failed us.

Posted by: Birdman | September 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

It's a beautiful thing that so many of us can see what's really happening here...but how can we stop the madness? Isn't there some way to slam the brakes on this sort of blatant misuse, misrepresentation, and misspending?

This is spiraling out of control and we all seem to be helpless to do anything about it! I can't shake the feeling of being gagged and tied here. After eight years of Bush, America is a laughing stock. And here we go again!

Posted by: JuliaH | September 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey if McCain had a plan to capture Bin Ladin a year ago as he stated then, then why hasn't he picked up the phone and called it in?
Surely he knows the phone number to somebody in Washington. I'd say he is an old blowhard. No policy, no interest in the people, no interest in the real solutions. I'd say more of the Bush bs with a touch of lipstick.

Posted by: Westerner | September 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

You have got to be kidding.

When Obama paused and then made the "lipstick on a pig" comment, almost the entire audience broke out in a gleeful laughter. Having heard this cliche many times over the years, it is interesting that the audience reacted differently, this time, because they knew full well who it referred to after Palin's comment the other day about pitbull dogs and hockey moms and lipstick.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 10, 2008 11:02 PM

If you watch the video of McCain calling Clinton's health care program "putting lipstick on a pig," his audience similarly laughs at the quip. It's a funny turn of phrase. And considering that McCain actually has told blatant, offensive, sexist jokes about Hillary Clinton (haven't you heard the "why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly" joke?), the fact that nobody called it sexism when McCain said it is pretty telling -- it's not offensive.

If Palin wants to refer to herself as an unattractive animal in lipstick, she's welcome to do so. However to accuse other people of doing so when there is no evidence that that was what was intended is ridiculous and a stretch for Republicans.

If we're going to talk about sexism, why don't we talk about the hypocrisy of a team crusading under the banner of Fallen Hillary Clinton when she has long been referred to by the Republican party, and the two people on the ticket themselves, as "The B*tch"? Kill the faux outrage, will you?

Posted by: Katie | September 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Democrats: just keep repeating your lies often enough and people will believe them. "She said she sold the plane on eBay!" Sorry, that's not true.

"She didn't oppose the bridge." Sorry, she DID kill the bridge project, and no amount of your lying alters that fact.

And keep telling people that Obama just wants to talk about the issues. Oh? Then why was he on Letterman still talking about lipstick? What "issues" does he want to talk about? Change? Change what?

You libs are in panic mode because the only single thing Obama had going for him has been taken away - a vague promise of change. All the rest was empty words from a half-term senator who has accomplished exactly diddly-squat and spent most of that half-term running for president.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

You know cw, you have just identified one of the great Republican myths - that the people who hold power in the Republican party represent the values of evangelical, or religious, or small town, etc Americans.

I was an independent until I got frustrated that my voice couldn't be heard unless I affiliated, so I am a Democrat by default. I care for children with chronic illnesses. I see families at their most stressed, awash in medical bills, who never dreamed they'd be in need of publicly funded services (like early intervention). Working with people every day who have no bootstraps or who are too beaten down to grasp them, as a human being with any kind of empathy, much less as a Christian, I can't just turn my back. I worked with an evangelical woman who clearly looked down on the people we serve at the beginning (and I got the phone calls complaining about it). But I knew she finally got it when she slammed the phone down one day on an agency and cried out "don't these people understand this mother can't do it herself, she needs help".

Sure I am against creating a culture of dependency. But the person without health care isn't the Reagan "welfare queen", its the waitress who served you breakfast the last time you ate out, or the maid who cleaned your last hotel room. I sing in a church choir, and I wish all parents would give their children the benefit of a spiritual education, but I'd rather have an aethiest defend my separation of church and state than a Pharisee. I am distinctly disinterested in living in an American Taliban. Yes, its too bad that schools have to get involved in sex ed. If parents were doing their job they wouldn't have to.

I have a cousin who is a priest in a conservative Christian faith. His response to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was "they're terrorists, they don't deserve human rights". Except there's one little problem with this - we let the vast majority of the people in Abu Ghraib go when the scandal broke, and have let even a fair number go from Gitmo since then. I don't want people running my government who think its OK to deny other people basic human rights without bothering to check that they actually are terrorists first. Its just not a family value I support.

Finally, I could retire much wealthier if I had a dollar for the number of women carrying babies with lethal birth defects who said to me "I was violently pro-life, and now I can't believe I might consider that having an abortion is the right decision".

Posted by: patriot | September 11, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I wish people would stop putting all the blame on the media. The blame can me mainly put on the American voter who is to lazy, intellectually uncurious, blinded by his parties interests to seek the facts.

Posted by: cirrus_nine | September 11, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain in 2008

Posted by: Gary | September 11, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Franco, Kack Kinch and Scooter 1962 must all be so busy listening to Rush the pill popper that they can't watch the tape and see the facts present themselves.

Sawahh and Johnny "I'm a hero because I said so" were never mentioned. Only their blind support of W's failed 8 years as the guy who is renting the White House was.

You're right about one thing...and we all agree. Obama should have never included "pigs" in his comments. Pigs are loyal, decent and have integrity.

McCain and Palin have none of the above. McCain sold out his fellow vets years ago and still does, while using them as a crutch to pander for votes.

Lumping them (pigs) into the conversation about McCain was an insult to our barnyard friends.

Posted by: JC | September 11, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Faux Pearls on Swine!

If Obama was referring to Palin (and it's quite clear he wasn't), then "it" (she) is like putting lip stick on a pig (McCain).

So, the claim fails on two fronts. He wasn't talking about her, as his entire quote clearly indicates, and if you're foolish enough to think he was, then she was the LIP STICK.

Good news, republicans, it's McCain who is the pig!

The Repub's faux offense is comically flawed.

Posted by: payingattention | September 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"mccain is a failed fighter pilot , not the kind of person we need as a president."

How DARE you! He was a bomber pilot.

Posted by: A noun, a verb and POW. and now a pit bull with lipstick, too. | September 11, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

When Obama made the "pig" comment, regardless of what he intended, the vast majority of the people understood it to refer to Palin.

Here are his issues:

1. If he didn't intend Palin, at the very least he was irresponsible making a remark that most everyone would misunderstand. (I don't think anyone really believes he didn't intend Palin except those who refuse to recognize or express the truth!)

2. If he did intend Palin, then he is lying about not doing so, and once again refusing to own up to his actions.

Obama doesn't do himself a favor in going after her.

The media are also losing their credibility in continuing to assert that McCain and Palin are only expressing lies. We can all read the stories on the internet--we are not quite as dumb as the media would like to suggest, nor are we naive, and I don't see lies being promulgated--except of course by the irresponsible types in the media who don't want to acknowledge the truth.

If you want to talk about scandals, unseemly neighbors, racist pastors, and mentors. Be honest about those subjects and we may listen to you on other subjects.

Palin is pretty good and you know it--you wouldn't be reacting against her if you weren't running scared!

Posted by: lookingforbetterdays | September 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

You Dems are awfully good at throwing out insults just like your messiah. And just like your messiah, you haven't the slightest interest in truth.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kinsley, unfortunately, has it right. The Republicans have done a very good job of making everything a catch-22. Even to proving a negative!

Remember, let Saddam Hessein prove that he has no WMDs. There can never be proof. However, the positive is very easy. He could have sent one to Camp Doha just we for we launched our "shock and Awe." The reason that he did not attack Camp Doha with such a weapon is simple: he did not have one. There was no reason to attack with a scud missle. That would onlyhave angered the beast on the border.

However, there will be a payday one day. The Republicans are going to fall. It will happen. For one thing, God will not be mocked.

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain is TIRED. Sure, he can still get the old knocker pumping a few extra beats when he needs to, but the man cannot stand up to his party establishment like he occasionally used to or even think clearly for himself. If elected it will soon be obvious we have a dissipated man at the helm, not that this will make him less impulsive or less dangerous.

Posted by: nick | September 11, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: HURRICANS | September 11, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I like how Obama is screwing up so frequently that the Washington Post cover artists here have had to move to a "quick take" format just to keep up. Beats a once-weekly 10,000 word editorial trying to cover the 20 screwups Obama blundered into that week, I suppose.

If you REALLY want to know who is lying, and about whom, you should check out the nonpartisan's increasingly lengthy section on the smears Democrats are piling up against Palin.

Posted by: Rory | September 11, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Is it true John McCain tried to hang himself after he spilled his guts to the Cong ?
The start of Swift Boating II

Posted by: jersey devil | September 11, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: MCBUSH/MCROVE/MCCHANEY | September 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The lipstick on a pig remark is one that Obama has used many times during his campaign, long before anyone even knew who Sarah Palin was. So because she happened to tell a joke about pitbulls and lipstick, Obama is now forbidden from using this phrase? The McCain-Palin campaign is just trying to stir up sh*t.

Posted by: dym | September 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

When I saw Campbell Brown not allow the McCain representative to dodge a direct question with double speak it became all to clear what we have come to expect from the media. I think both McCain and Obama should be given direct questions to which they must give direct answers. The media has come to the point where it does not seek to do anything but get a guest appearance to drive ratings and worry that they do not offend. And the audience is allowing it!

True reporters of the news should treat both (all) sides equally. But not by throwing softball questions but by holding each candidate to task.

America do not settle for mediocrity.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

McCain apparently isn't man enough to talk about the issues. I don't want him for president. I doubt he can even remember when he used to have virtues.

Posted by: Jim | September 11, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

All the lipstick dispute is about is that McCain is using it as a smokescreen so he doesn't have to talk about the issues. Everyone knows it. The fact that McCain wants to talk about it just shows he is not capable of being president anymore. McCain has become juvenile.

Posted by: Jim | September 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


LONDON, Wednesday - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced support today for US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying he would help Americans struggling with an economic downturn.

In a move seen by some British media as a break with a political convention requiring foreign leaders to remain neutral ahead of US elections, Mr Brown praised Mr Obama as a fellow “progressive politician” who would help ordinary Americans in tough times. With eight weeks to go before the presidential election, Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain are neck-and-neck in domestic opinion polls.

Mr Brown described the race for the White House as “electrifying” and said: “It is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times.”

“To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession,” he wrote in an article in The Monitor magazine, a monthly political publication.












Will the GOP Republican get rich by selling America party take credit for any of their disasters? GOP Republicans are successful at failing and hurting OUR COUNTRY in the eyes of the WORLD. Can we really afford to ignore what the ENTIRE WORLD THINKS OF US?

How does the WORLD perceive AMERICA led by Barack Obama? Extremely favorable.

How does the WORLD perceive AMERICA led by John McCain? Extremely negative.


Eventually, Americans will realize that doing the same thing (electing GOP Republicans) will not yield different results (stock market disasters, economic disasters, world view disasters, failed foreign policy disasters, failed domestic policies disasters).

Spraying perfume on a new GOP Republican Pig will not create a bright and shiny candidate. Garbage in equal garbage out. GOP Republican garbage in yield (stock market, economic, foreign relations, domestic policies) garbage out.

McCain has perpetually been a failure from school until now.
Palin has perpetually been a failure (with a hillbilly hockey mom accent) from day one until now. Her bear hunting Arctic outback kids prove it.

Do you really need someone to tell you these basic facts? Under the Freedom of Information Act, all of this information is available free if you choose to type in the questions.

Lets prove to the Europeans and the World that we are not stupid, because they think that we are after two terms of Forrest Gump Bush.

D Student Crash Every Plane McCain and Hillbilly Trailer Palin are not reflective of the American People.

If Palin had a brain, then she would have considered the immense responsibilities demanded of the Office of the United States Vice President or President; and politely declined McCain’s crack induced invitation. GOP Republican Party is a joke.

If FOX NEWS does not clean up it’s filthy RACIST acts of discrimination, then American and European audiences will B O Y C O T T FOX RACIST NEWS.




GOP REPUBLICAN Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported.

Investigators from the Interior Department's inspector general's office said more than a dozen employees, including the former director of the oil royalty program, took meals, ski trips, sports tickets and golf outings from industry representatives. The report alleges that the former director, also netted more than $30,000 from improper outside work.

The report from Inspector General contains fresh allegations about the practices at the beleaguered royalty-in-kind program of Interior's Minerals Management Service, which last year collected more than $4 billion worth of oil and natural gas from companies given contracts to tap energy on federal and Indian lands and offshore. The revelations come as Congress is set to consider opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and areas off the coast of Florida for drilling.

The royalty-in-kind program, based near Denver, allows energy companies to pay the government in oil and gas, rather than cash, for the privilege of drilling on government land. It has been the subject of multiple investigations since 2006 by the Interior Department's secretary, its inspector general, the Justice Department and Congress for alleged mismanagement and conflicts of interest.

In the report released yesterday, investigators said they "discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" in which employees accepted gratuities "with prodigious frequency." The report cited one e-mail from a Shell Pipeline representative asking a woman in the royalty office to attend "tailgating festivities" at a Houston Texans football game: "You're invited . . . have you and the girls meet at my place at 6am for bubble baths and final prep."

Besides Shell, the energy company employees mentioned in the report worked for Chevron, Hess and Gary-Williams Energy. The social outings detailed in the report included alcohol-, cocaine- and marijuana-filled parties where certain employees of the Minerals Management Service were nicknamed the "MMS Chicks" by the energy employees. The companies paid for federal workers to attend football and baseball games, PGA Tour events, Colorado ski trips, paintball outings and "treasure hunts," investigators found.

"The OIL INDUSTRY holds shocking sway over the ADMINISTRATION and even KEY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,". "This is why we must not allow BIG OIL'S AGENDA to be jammed through CONGRESS."

The current director of the Minerals Management Service, said that he takes the report "very seriously".
Employees identified in the report told investigators that they didn't think ethics rules applied to them because of their "unique" role in the agency and that they needed to socialize with industry representatives for "market intelligence," according to the report. Those employees, some of whom have been transferred to different offices, have been recommended for internal administrative action.

The inspector general's release comprised three separate reports, including one devoted to the program's director. It alleges that Smith improperly worked part time for Geomatrix Consultants, an Oakland, Calif.-based environmental and engineering firm, and marketed the company to government clients.

Additionally, the report said that the director had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate whom he paid to buy cocaine, promising her a bonus in return. The director admitted to the sexual encounter.

The director, who now works for a private oil company in Denver, did not respond to requests for comment. Investigators referred their findings to federal prosecutors.

Justice officials also declined to comment on their decision about the criminal case against the highest-ranking official named in the report director of the Minerals Management Service, who worked in Washington. She is accused of improperly arranging a million-dollar deal for two retired employees.

The wife of the procurement policy administrator for the WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, retired from government service Jan. 31. She declined to comment on the report. She told investigators she had a "personal issue. The Justice Department's decision to charge created a rift with Interior officials.

One of the two retired employees pleaded guilty in July to a federal conflict-of-interest charge related to the investigation. Another employee has been under investigation for similar conflict-of-interest allegations.

Before he left, Mayberry created a job for himself by writing the job description and the criteria for selecting the winning bidder, court documents show. He started a company out of his Texas home and was awarded a $150,000 contract in June 2003. He later hired Dial, the report said. Mayberry's firm collected $788,000 worth of contracts.

The royalty-in-kind program, which started as a small pilot project a decade ago, has been touted as a way to simplify the way OIL AND GAS COMPANIES pay for the right to drill on federal land and offshore. Instead of calculating the profit from a well, they can simply give the government one-eighth to one-sixth of whatever they take from the ground.

Revenue rose quickly, from $1.5 billion in 2004 to $4.3 billion last fiscal year. But the growth occurred "in an environment with relatively unstructured in-house oversight," the congressionally convened Royalty Policy Committee said in a December report. Previous reports have said that companies were allowed to revise their million-dollar bids for projects indiscriminately, that government workers routinely failed to seek out legal advice on complicated deals and that the agency used outdated computers and a $150 million software program that resulted in royalty money going uncollected.

A lawyer who represented states and tribes entitled to a cut of the royalties, said it was nearly impossible to get accurate numbers from the agency. "They kept hemming and hawing," she said.

In late 2006 questions arose over its handling of leases written in 1998 and 1999 that allowed major oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to avoid billions of dollars in royalty payments.

Former Interior Department auditors accused the agency of failing to bill companies. "We weren't allowed to audit them. It was disturbing," said an auditor who sued the federal government for not collecting royalties. "You couldn't see what was going on."

The minerals agency director said that the harm done by the royalty employees was to public trust and Treasury, and acknowledged that financial considerations were given to firms that gave favors to federal employees, and he said the contracts will be audited.

Do you really question the motives of GOP Republicans Criminals? America must Immediately Nationalize U.S. Oil and Gas For National Defense.

Posted by: GOP Republicans Put Greed First | September 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Lies work because the nation we live in now is composed of millions of folks who get their news from talk radio. They're not interested in actually researching anything. They know what they know - if Rush said it, it must be true! If passing a basic 20 question multiple choice intelligence test were required to vote, the Democrats would never lose an election.

Posted by: bosox1419 | September 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has become juvenile."

If so he's only lowered himself to Obama's level. This is the senator who so cutely and slyly gave Hillary the bird during a campaign speech (and no getting around that one, either). He's worse than juvenile. He throws out these little infantile barbs all the time and his little flock of faithful disciples, even more immature than he is, just eat it up. Now they're getting called on it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Tut, tut boys and girls. Relax, read a book. You might find that this type of shabby drivel is the true mother's milk of American electoral politics and has been since prerevolutionary colonial elections. In the DNA; it ain't gonna change.

Posted by: Stefaneau | September 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, here's a rule of thumb: actions don't lie.

Both men have some actions of which to be proud. McCain, of course, enduring the POW camp and voluntarily remaining when they offered to release him early for propaganda reasons. Obama, of course, giving up the likelihood of a lucrative career in order to give back by working for starvation wages for years to help a very poor, disadvantaged community.

They also both have years of elected office -- McCain in Congress, and Obama first in the Illinois state legislature, then in Congress. You can look at their records (their actions) to see who has aggressively pursued education and economic policy issues -- Obama -- and who has been rather bored by the domestic side -- McCain.

In addition, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He openly embraced George Bush. He is living it up in this campaign with disgusting Rovian smears, distortions, and shameful tactics of the type that once arosed his anger. He named a VP who is not qualified to succeed him. His actions are his lies.

Posted by: Actions don't lie | September 11, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"If passing a basic 20 question multiple choice intelligence test were required to vote, the Democrats would never lose an election."

Oh, tee hee. That's so cute and clever. Reminds me of the kinds of insults thrown out by the One. Like how he so cutely and cleverly gave Hillary the bird during a campaign speech (no wriggling out of that one I'm afraid) while his mindless disciples ate it up.

Maybe you should ask yourself why 90% of high-school dropouts vote Democrat.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I'll tell you what..I hope the first thing Obama does when he gets into office is to dismantle the telecommunications industry and break of the monopolies. Maybe competition will finally bring back responsible journalism. McClatchy News, why aren't you on cable tv!

Posted by: Narnia | September 11, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

The secret of the Big Lie, as Karl Marx Rove and his comrades McCain and Bush practice it, is to keep saying it over and over and cow the media.

Then the media give it "equal time", even though they all KNOW it's a LIE.


Because the media, on the whole, are cowards.



But they'll never admit that.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 11, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Cite some evidence, "Shovel". And learn the difference between correlation and causation. I can tell you from experience that over 90% of people with a PhD support Democrats. And that is because they know that Democratic policies are good for the nation. Republicans? Incompetent and dishonest. After 6 of the last 7+ years in control of the White House and Congress, the GOP is solely responsible for the mess this country is in. So why should we trust the Republicans with another 4 years of the same?

Posted by: reality bites | September 11, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Rory says:
"If you REALLY want to know who is lying, and about whom, you should check out the nonpartisan's increasingly lengthy section on the smears Democrats are piling up against Palin."


Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea about the above post, please go to the website and really find out where the truth is. You will also find out that most of the "sliming of Palin" is being done on-line by anonymous bloggers. There is no way of knowing their political affiliation. Republicans are so caught up in their tricks that they will post slime and complain that the opposition did it.

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I thought you guys were into digging up your own evidence. Where's your evidence to back up your ludicrous claim that "If passing a basic 20 question multiple choice intelligence test were required to vote, the Democrats would never lose an election."

And how is it that you tell me to learn the difference between correlation and causation but then use the exact same reasoning with percentage of Ph.D.s? And your evidence is your "experience"? LOL! What does that mean? How many people with Ph.D.'s did you ask?

Here, chomp on this one, you might learn something - like why you stuck-up pricks keep losing elections, and why you'll probably lose this one if messiah keeps flapping his gums about lipstick:

Incidentally, the author is a libertarian, not a Republican.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

reality bites.... I fail to see the 'good' in the Dems policies.

Sending 2 additional combat brigades to Afganastan and securing THEIR borders? What about the borders of the USA? Not tomention the $1 Billion Obama is offering.

I'm not bashing the Dems... because McCain wants to add even MORE troops than that!!!

People, look at REAL issues and REAL solutions. Get past all this stupid talk about pit bulls, pigs and lipstick!!!

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I just heard it from her own lips. There is absolutely no humility in the woman (Palin). Just watch the interview with Charles Gibson on ABC when it airs.

Another matter. Whether intentional or not, Obama's kissing a pig comment got the desired effect. The Republican attack machine over-reacted. When everything is fully aired, it will show how pathetic the Republicans are. It kind of makes you remember how trigger happy they were to go into Iraq. Even the French Ambassador to the U.N. respectfully suggested that the U.S. dalay while the weapons inspections were finished. If anyone remembers, Iraq was destroying it's longest range missles which had a range only a couple of km's longer than allowed.

I still ask: Why would a country who is facing war with a superpower keep destroying its most effective missles? Folks, this is a matter of record.

Now, if the "quick to the response" Republicans are in the White House, is that proverbial mushroom cloud soon to follow. Think about this Dr. Condi Rice and all of you neocons.

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I posted this very early this morning on other sites. Some of the edits are very tight. I dare Gibson and ABC to stream the "raw" footage without burnt in timecode and continuous. Palin knows the questions and answers. There are also way to many edits. Most tv journalist will pick this up. The average Joe or Jane blow won't.

9/11/2008 7:49 AM EDT
RICK DAVIS, McCain's man is controlling the press. He throws what I call "flash bang grenades" "He told you the campaign wasn't going to be about issues. What has it been about Oprah and lip stick. And the press just plays along with their behinds up in the air. Can you believe with all the problems in this country that they spent two whole days and on lipstick. Rick controls everything about Palin including who she talks too. ABC network went to bed with him for ratings. What good is a bunch of cut up edited tapes spread out over who knows how long. Charlie Gibson already lost his creditability with the Obama interview, but now he has sold his soul to the devil. He's worst than fox news. Its all about control for Rick Davis the real press will never get a chance to interview Palin. Her first real press conference will not take place for months, win or lose because she's NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME. And if she is NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME, then how can she help lead (or possibly lead) this country? She is the biggest sham the republican party has going but more importantly, she's dangerous for the country. Since there are those in the media afraid to say it, I'll say it for them. The press traveling with Palin can't even ask her questions,but they can record the same stump speech over and over again. The country has her speech but doesn't know who she is because they are kept away from asking her about her views.

Posted by: Chopped up interview | September 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Lies in any context ahould be exposed and the perpetrator of those lies revealed. If our democratic republic is to survive, we have to stop telling lies. For a government, lies are the same as propaganda. The internet allows anonymous people to spread anything they want. Before you know it, McCain said this and Obama said that. All not true. This is why we need a responsible free press, the same press that the right seems to hate. Both Obama and McCain have already said a lot which has been caught on tape for review. McCain says that he stands behind his commercials and same for Obama. If the commercial is a lie, then the person standing behind it is lying. Where is the personal responsibility and accountability?

Bill Clinton told his famous "lie" looking into the camera at the American Public. Bush has looked at you and lied about Iraq and Afghanistan. He has lied about the economy. His adminsitration has probably destroyed more official records than all other administrations combined -- Nixon was probably the last great destroyer of records.

The problem with this adminstration is that everything is "executive privilege" and no testimony is to be conducted on the record under oath. The same goes for all those operatives, including Rove, who refused to go to testify in Congress. All of this should give us concern.

Not so with the current crop of Republicans. There is no lie that they can tell that is too repulsive. Is there no shame?

Is there no shame?

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

No the same, shovel. In your case, you assert it without evidence. In my case, I have a PhD, and I've worked with countless others at 3 different institutions. Politics sometimes gets discussed because a lot of my coworkers are very worried about how corruption and incompetence within the GOP are ruining our country. I have easily had discussions with over 100 people. I can count on one hand the number that side with you. And there's a difference between being stuck up and making an argument based on evidence, something your side seems incapable of distinguishing between. It's perfect for you guys. Get in an argument with somebody who knows more than you? No problem! Ignore the evidence and call him/her an elitist (or a prick, as you seem to prefer)! End of argument. Name-calling is a poor substitute for a substantive debate, but it seems to work for you guys. It's just like the last election. Your side couldn't win based on the issues, so you had to destroy our candidate's reputation with outright lies. Congratulations. You must be very proud of how that victory improved our nation.

Posted by: reality bites | September 11, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I love it.

The Party of William Jefferson Clinton now saying that they're interested in the Truth. What a hoot.

The WP has been one of the biggest supporters of anything the Democrats put out there. They spike anything that might hurt the Democrats--a form of Lie.

Posted by: Fergie | September 11, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse


I have two master's degrees, so what? You're the one that came on here with no evidence whatsoever and said (and again I quote), "If passing a basic 20 question multiple choice intelligence test were required to vote, the Democrats would never lose an election."

If that's not the comment of a stuck-up prick, I don't what is.

And I just gave you evidence. You have given nothing except anecdotal evidence. But I like how rather than responding with evidence of your own you just say, "oh, there's no evidence." La, la, la, my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

Democrats wouldn't stand a chance without the votes of the poor and minorities who always fall for their promises of handouts from bigdaddy.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

To continue the blog by "Actions don't lie," I'll add

McCain was unfaithful to his first wife. He pushed her to the curb and married a very wealthy, trophy wife. The Republicans made a big deal about Teresa Kerry and her wealth, but not a word about Cindy. As you see, the Democrats do play politics differently. In fact, Cindy seems to flount her wealth to the great glee of Republicans.

McCain makes major flip flops on principled positions. The Republicans jumped all over Kerry based on a very easily explained change in vote on one main issue.

McCain is building a campaign on lies about the opposition. So much for his statements that his campaign would be an honest one on the issues.

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh, almost forgot, I know an awful lot of guys with Ph.D.s who don't agree with YOU.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The MSM is completely in the tank for Senator Obama and now they're in a panic because their favored candidate isn't waltzing to the White House. What to do? Let's do a piece on lying, and focus only on things from the McCain campaign that we don't like. Well, how about Senator Obama's whoppers? Don't those offend you? How about when he claimed his father was brought over on a scholarship sponsored by the Kennedy family (false), and he claimed that his mother and father met during the march on Selma (false). The list goes on, but the MSM only takes issue with what they don't like on the right. No wonder the big newspapers (including the WP) are crumbling. People aren't going to continue to pay to hear the liberal line.

Posted by: D. McArthur | September 11, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

To Get Out the Shovel, what have you offered the working poor?

The real truth is that the well off love to vote "no" when it comes to making sure that those who work have a living wage. There will be a payday one day and I pray that it is not a full blown revolution like in France. There is a history out there.

I hope that we have learned that pre-emptive warfare is a bad idea.

Jesus gave the example. Sometimes turning the other cheek puts out the fire. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

It is amazing to me how much Bible, especially New Testament, that the religious right does not know.

To be a conservative and actively proceed to bankrupt the country is an oxymoron. However, they believe in a strong military built on a basis of tax cuts. Their notion of cutting government is to cut taxes and borrow money to do what: increase the size of government. Talk about convoluted logic. The Republicans take the cake.

Posted by: Earl C | September 11, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Brian, we may disagree on policies, but I respect you for at least explaining why you maintain certain beliefs. With regard to Afghanistan, I suspect that with the Taliban growing in strength, not to mention the continued reliance of farmers on the sale of opium crops, one could argue that assisting the Afghani govt would ultimately protect us against a growing threat from Al Qaeda. I don't necessarily disagree with McCain on this point. I just don't trust his judgement about lots of other stuff. He supported the misguided invasion of Iraq. That has distracted us from real threats, led to tens of thousands of unnecessary injured and dead soldiers, and drained our treasury. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate also disturbs me. She has no experience with national issues; she has abused her power in Alaska; and she lies about her accomplishments. Similarly I think McCain offers little in terms of solving our health care crisis, something that is a priority to the dems, as Obama has articulated.

Posted by: reality bites | September 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Reality really does bite for you, Shovel. I never insulted your party by referring to a questionnaire. Look it up. And stop calling me a prick because you can't think of anything better to say. I gave you evidence, which is my personal experience, a lot of it. In responses to other people I refer to actual history and policy. You assert without any evidence whatsoever. I'm done with you.

Posted by: reality bites | September 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Earl C,

I'm not sure what your question really means. It's not about what you OFFER the poor. It's about actually DOING something. And I don't believe that's bigdaddy governments job.

I help people less fortunate than me through personal giving (yes, I've helped many poor and homeless people by groceries, given them meals, etc.) and giving through my church, which also contributes to community organizations.

What have you done for the poor?

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse


Just keep saying I've given no evidence, when in fact I did. More liberal lies. Nice way to retreat from an argument when you've lost, though.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

And what do you mean "my party"? You just assume I'm a Republican? I'm not, and I haven't even decided if I'm going to vote. I'm just sick and tired of lying liberals having control of the airwaves and the blogosphere. I'm countering all the lies on here with truth. Sorry if that makes you mad.

Posted by: Get out the shovel | September 11, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

listen to the crowd, they knew what he meant

Posted by: thelaw | September 11, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

That's easy, Michael.
We've become a nation that doesn't care what's true, what's not.
What's honorable; what's not.
The GOP has successfully eradicated any semblance of moral decency in American discourse, especially political elections.
They play dirty.
Not only during the election, but their every contact with the public they wish to dominate is a campaign.
Remember the campaign and hard sell in the run-up to the Iraq war?
I'm a military wife and I KNEW they were lying and this trumped-up invasion was a fraud.
Congress caved in; it's hard to stand up to such fraud in committee.
If the American public falls for this bald-faced campaign of hypocrisy conducted by the GOP, they deserve the result: the death of a free democracy called "The United States of America."
We have less than 60 days to decide if we want to remain a free democracy.
If, on November 5, the GOP remain in the White House, we will no longer breathe free and we will learn what that means sooner, rather than later.
At that point, the Constitution and our rule of law will have been rendered invalid and of no consequence.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | September 11, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

The amazing thing is that Obama seems to have been caught flat-footed by all this. He has looked variously dazed, stuttering, tired, etc. Of course the Aisles-Rove gang plays dirty! Lies are part of the fabric because just enough Americans can be easily manipulated to ensure that minority views (conservatism) keep governing. McBush knows that winning comes first, then he can do what he wants. Obama seems not to grasp this.

Posted by: billthinx | September 11, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The issue of 'Pig and lipstick' should not be twisted to favor McCain. This is not a relevant issue that can bring food on the table of an average American. The issue that can bring prospect must be relevant to all aspects of social and economic life of Americans in particular and the world in general.The media in the US are not fair to Obama for the reasons best known to them. On the issue of VP choice,Sen.Obama might have, out of respect for Sen.Hilary thought that that position was inappropriate for her,considering her rank with the Democratic Party; because her wish was to be the President of the United States.

Let no one believe that Gov. Palin can be compared with Sen.Hilary Clinton. While Sen.Clinton is 'an Heavyweight Politician' with impeccable experience in government and politics; first,as a first lady at the State level in Arkansas for 12 years; secondly as the first lady of the US in the White House for 8 years and thirdly as the Senator representing NY in her second term in the Senate.

Her in depth knowledge coupled with experience of how government operate at those levels placed Gov.Palin at a distanced gap from Sen. Clinton.

I believe that Sen. Clinton could still become the First Female President of the United States in the future for as long as she gives sincere support that can translate into victory for Sen. Obama in the November election.

May God bless America,because the security of America is a catalyst for the global peace and security of the world in general.

Posted by: Omar Y.Aiyelabegan | September 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a national hero;Obama is essentially a zero. He has to be the most ill prepared, naive, inexperienced candidate ever to seek the Presidency.He can not lead a country in today's dangerous world. His lofty promises to give free health care to everyone and to create new social programs will be meaningless if the terrorist strike our country and we do not survive.

Posted by: dsapp | September 11, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Christians generally lie a lot, rationalizing that it's good for their god. Since god wants McCain, the lies are ok by them. It's really as simple as that.

I always hope that candidates, no matter their professions of faith, are smart enough not to believe any of that claptrap. Talking snakes, virgin births, Jesus suffering an atoning death for Adam and Eve's sin; man, how f-ing stupid do you have to be to believe that sh*t.

Posted by: Cletus | September 11, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain offers nothing---nothing, to solve any problem we face. he is, in fact, clueless.

The stunning fact that he has pulled ahead in the two party race should, however, surprise no one. Do we have to review recent American history regarding voter support for dumb ideas and bad politicians?

Posted by: Brian | September 11, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

As a Cristian and, with all due respect to the opinion of a prior post, I do not condone lying. Of course, I believe the precepts of my faith. But this is my faith. I do not force you to believe it. In the public square, we should conduct our business in a truthful way. Otherwise, there will quickly be no foundation on which to build the trust necessary to have a civillized society. A government built on lies stands to serve no one. Part of the big crisis we face today is because of lies. If we tell people the truth, then they'll not vote for us the next time. Or, let us make up a story that will make them vote for us. Hence the politics of fear.

Posted by: EarlC | September 11, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

We live in amazing times. This man, Michael
Kinsley, can read the mind of the Messiah!

Posted by: stu | September 11, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The Dems say they want to steal more money from the taxpayers. Compared to that, lying seems like a lesser sin. It's OK to lie to the SS about where the Jews are hiding.

Posted by: peasant | September 11, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

dsapp is entitled to his own view. However, there are less offensive ways to make the point. Our founding fathers had no experience with the form of government that they created. However, they had an incredible vision. Obama has such an incredible vision for our future. All candidates for office possess the qualifications according to the U.S. Constitution. There is no test for president other than the will of the people. We forget that ours is a government of, by, and for the people. However, we have allowed our "people" power to be usurped by big corporations and highly paid lobbyists. Both the big money and the pressure of paid spokespeople makes the politician less responsive to the local constituency.

There are way too many examples of the erosion of the influence of the local populace.

Another brief point. Please tell me what in the world are our Congresspersons doing going to a warzone? Politics has no doubt caused this administration to put an all out propaganda campaign to gather opposing evidence as to how things are going in Iraq. For John McCain to go on one of his "fact finding" trips and require dozens of helicopters and about 150 armed soldiers to protect him is totally a misappropriation of our fighting forces who are in harms way. As it turned out, the very next day a major bomb was detonated in an area that seemed to be running Ok when McCain wss there. It just goes to show what must be done to present a photo op that represented the view that one political party wanted to publish. It is in some ways dishonest.

The latest Woodward book may bring into question the reliance that Bush kept telling the American public that he had on the Generals as to troop requirements and so forth. In some ways I am glad that he may actually have been acting as CIC. On the other hand, why lie to me?

Posted by: EarlC | September 11, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

reality bites,

I like the fact that you can respond in a conversational tone and not go nuts when someone has something to say that isnt 'in line' with a party's views. I understnad the idea behind the opium crop, but I have a problem in sending that much money someplace to try and build/rebuild an entire agricultural system. I saw a news story that we had delivered an industrial turbine in Afghanastan a couple of weeks ago(might be off on the timing of the actual delivery) to help with the power supply and irrigation of those opium fields.

I do believe we should help other countries in time of say, a natural disaster or something similar, but dont believe we should spend billions of dollars to build entire countries infrastructure. On that note, Sen Obama sponsored a Bill called the Global Poverty Act in 2007. I hadnt heard of this Bill until very recently. IT was sponsored by Sen Obama and one of his co-sponsors was Sen Biden. That bill alone will spend hundreds of billions of dollars (if not trillions) to help bring the rest of the world out of poverty, while at the same time, drive our national deficit to levels that we havent seen yet.

To see this bill in black and white, check out this link.

Brian, we may disagree on policies, but I respect you for at least explaining why you maintain certain beliefs. With regard to Afghanistan, I suspect that with the Taliban growing in strength, not to mention the continued reliance of farmers on the sale of opium crops, one could argue that assisting the Afghani govt would ultimately protect us against a growing threat from Al Qaeda. I don't necessarily disagree with McCain on this point. I just don't trust his judgement about lots of other stuff. He supported the misguided invasion of Iraq. That has distracted us from real threats, led to tens of thousands of unnecessary injured and dead soldiers, and drained our treasury. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate also disturbs me. She has no experience with national issues; she has abused her power in Alaska; and she lies about her accomplishments. Similarly I think McCain offers little in terms of solving our health care crisis, something that is a priority to the dems, as Obama has articulated.

Posted by:

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

oops, didnt mean to repost your comment, had copied/pasted for reference and forgot to delete it

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"The Dems say they want to steal more money from the taxpayers. Compared to that, lying seems like a lesser sin. It's OK to lie to the SS about where the Jews are hiding." - by peasant

Just stunning... You justify the lies of the GOP by equating them to protection of the Jews during WWII. They're not. And it's insulting to Jews to make the comparison. And then there's the lie about Dems stealing money. It's propagated every election by the GOP, without evidence, and it's still a lie. Obama's plan would raise taxes for individuals making in excess of $250,000 per year. That's a very small portion of the population. And it's responsible economic policy. This country is trillions of dollars in debt thanks to the Republicans' unnecessary war in Iraq and the Bush/McCain tax break for the rich (and only the rich).

Do you really believe the crap you write?

Posted by: dem | September 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

THe reason people lie, and ultimately the ONLY reason, is that they think they can get away with it ! And, until the FBI and police begin using the proven Brain FIngerprinting technology, that is sadly true....

Posted by: Robert Eaton | September 11, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

dem, check out the link to the Global Poverty Act, you might see something that you dont like about Obama. Ive never believed in voting for a Party because of the Party.

Check this out:

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

just a little help with that link, check out paragraph (9)

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

peasant: The Dems say they want to steal more money from the taxpayers. Compared to that, lying seems like a lesser sin. It's OK to lie to the SS about where the Jews are hiding.

Just a hunch, but I suspect peasant would have been among the people pointing out to the Gestapo where the Jews were hiding. As he admits, though, the Christians are liars.

Posted by: Cletus | September 11, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Goebbels would be so proud of the GOP.

Posted by: Becca | September 11, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Becca, check out the link that I posted a few comments ago. If you do, check out paragraph (9) That should sound alarms to you.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin equals Status Quo

Status Quo does not equal Change

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Beware America, the world is watching. And at the moment, your democracy looks to be one peg above Zimbabwe. All that has to happen now is to send some thugs to beat up Democrat voters and you would be on par. That's a very low bar for the democratic nation that claims to be the leader of the free world. Lift your game and start talking about serious issues - unfortunately, your decision in November will affect us all. I'm disgusted by the level of misinformation and the silliness of this campaign. If McCain wins, he will have to relate to the rest of the world and respect for him will be lower even than for his predecessor Bush

Posted by: worried observer | September 11, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

worried observer, I agree with you that this campaign is silly. That's why I am trying to spread the word about Bob Barr. He isnt making any blank promises with disinformation. He has a plan to cut spending, and thats not by creating another government agency to look into it.

Obama wants to send billions, if not trillions to Africa to get that entire continent out of poverty, and driving the US deeper in debt at the same time.

McCain wants to rattle his sabre at any country that doesent believe in what we believe in and has stated numerous times that he would have no problem in keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary (even joking that it may even be 100 years).

check out

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

worried observer, I agree with you that this campaign is silly. That's why I am trying to spread the word about Bob Barr. He isnt making any blank promises with disinformation. He has a plan to cut spending, and thats not by creating another government agency to look into it.

Obama wants to send billions, if not trillions to Africa to get that entire continent out of poverty, and driving the US deeper in debt at the same time.

McCain wants to rattle his sabre at any country that doesent believe in what we believe in and has stated numerous times that he would have no problem in keeping troops in Iraq as long as necessary (even joking that it may even be 100 years).

check out

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Good article. I completely agree.

Each time these kinds of republican/rovian tactics are used, the press has a responsibility to report them for what they are: the same old tired, divisive, culture-war tactics, distortions and lies to try to win yet another election.

The media has a responsibility to point out that Republicans used these same tactics to get Bush in twice and are now using them again to avoid accountability and having to explain eight years of failure.

The press knows exactly what's going on, nevertheless, it fans the flames and becomes complicit when it covers these tactics as though they are legitimate news. (Of course, this applies to both campaigns, but it's the republicans who have primarily used these tactics).

I don't care if the media is Republican-owned, it is the press's duty to the American people to report on real issues and to keep the debate focused on these issues: the economy, jobs, Iraq and Afghanistan, unemployment, the deficit, outrageous gas prices, Bush invading Pakistan, ALL the failures of this administration, not the trash that distracts people from the very real, serious concerns our country is facing.

Posted by: Carol L in Boston | September 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I used to respect John McCain, but no longer.

Whether it's overeagerness to win at any cost -- or the fact that his campaign is now run mostly by Karl Rove's protege's, McCain seem's to have "sold his soul" and squandered his hard-earned reputation for honesty and decency.

So sad to see a good man sell out.

Posted by: Janet W. | September 11, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

For those who have decided on who to vote for, maybe it is time to get a clue - stop watching TV news, stop reading news online & stop posting comments. For those still undecided folks, news magazines have time to investigate the candidates' backgrounds/records, key people on their teams, & their positions on important issues. You have 2 months to do your homework, plenty of time to decide on the team that can best handle the horrendous challenges our country will face over the next 4 yr.

I think we can agree that any change in weather is change we can believe in. Fall is nature's time for change - usually beautiful & enjoyable. Now, let's all ignore silly nonsense of political pundits who don't bear responsibility for running the country & go on outside & play.

Posted by: MomsHugs | September 11, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

What the GOP did was not a lie. It may not give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but it is not a lie. The Dems do the same thing all the time. Hillary and Obama where always in a tiff and outraged about some perceived slight during their competition for the democratic nomination. Am I really supposed to believe that Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro are racists? That Obama is a mysogynist? No! But these are "lies" that the Dems told about each other during the primary. (I am not mentioning Republicans, but they do the same.) This is just American politics. To refer to it as all lies is to really show an unsophisticated understanding of what is going on. That is kind of surprising from a guy like Kinsley.

Posted by: Scott3 | September 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh, by the way. If you want to see real lies, just read any post here claiming that "this issue" turned them from a McCain voter to an Obama voter or vise versa. Or, that this stupid pig/lipstick issue and this stupid article changed their mind in ANY way.

Posted by: Scott3 | September 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama is smart not to get unnerved or angry. So obvious to many of us the hypocrisy but it will sink in to others as well. McCain worked to remove all the safeguards to the home mortgage industry put in place following the depression with his all-things-free-market stand. Not that simple, if McCain couldn't understand or care why the safeguards were needed (a fail safe sorely missed and now at a huge cost), then he lacks the ability to be a good president--dangerous to our democracy to have to make such dramatic moves to fix this. This is part of his doing sorry to say.

Posted by: Bruce | September 11, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I acknowledge that Obama was not directly talking about Palin when he brought up the pig's lipstick, but watch the video again. Everyone is almost falling asleep during the talk until he says lipstick, and then they suddenly roar into a standing ovation. EVERYONE at that speech understood that as a reference to Palin. That is the only reason they would respond to that tame analogy with a boisterous standing ovation. Even if Obama didn't mean it, is the sight of him inciting his followers to cheer because they think that he just called the opponent a pig offensive? It certainly make you feel uneasy when you watch the video.

Posted by: Roger | September 11, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Once I at least respected John McCain. No longer. He and his campaign are now up to their eyeballs in lying excrement. Has anybody else noticed this?

Posted by: oldhonky | September 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Once I at least respected John McCain. No longer. He and his campaign are now up to their eyeballs in lying excrement. Has anybody else noticed this?

Posted by: oldhonky | September 11, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

I guess you couldn't figure it out Kinsley. Palin, in her recent speech, made a reference to hockey moms like her wearing lipstick. Five days later, Obama said: "You could put lipstick on a pig and it would still be a pig." It was a kind of Freudian slip and it was probably directed at Palin. McCain several months ago used the same expression to talk about Hillary Clinton's policies. He was probably referring to Hillary herself, but he was a little more artful and original than Obama.

Posted by: ttj | September 10, 2008 11:44 PM
How could McCain have been more "original" than Obama if he used exactly the same phrase?

Posted by: SMC | September 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

--"What the GOP did was not a lie.
To refer to it as all lies is to really show an unsophisticated understanding of what is going on.
Posted by: Scott3 | September 11, 2008 11:00 PM"--

LOL!! You MUST be a lawyer. Mental gymanstics like that take practice.

--"I acknowledge that Obama was not directly talking about Palin when he brought up the pig's lipstick,Posted by: Roger | September 11, 2008 11:21 PM "--

So we agree. McCain's campaign - and so McCain himself - is a liar. And it makes no difference.

Well it does to me. I'd rather stay home then vote for a scum-bag. I'm an American first - and don't really understand people who identify themselves so closely to a party that they over-look basic decency. After rolling in the gutter with you two - I feel like I need to take a shower.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | September 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

NoOneImportant I can totally agree with you. Until this election, I used to look at all politicians as thieves and liars that had no-ones interests in mind but their own. I still felt that way until a couple of weeks ago when I heard about a man named Bob Barr. He has been speaking about issues, REAL issues and not the lipstick variety, which so many people seem hung up on. AND he has ways to implement the plans for those issues.

I'd like to invite you to check out the web site and search the topics and forums. I use the same name on the site as on here, feel free to contact me.

Posted by: Brian S | September 11, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I care whether politicians, candidates, presidents, VP's lie.

It is upsetting when we are told lies day-in and day-out. What led the public to support Bush to preemptively attack Iraq was based on his lies.

The administration's ratcheted-up bellicose threats and false accusations against Iran could result in another.

Candidates who consistently lie about their record, their opponent, about previous remarks and a host of other things have no business running for office. If they are willing to lie while campaigning it indicates they could just as easily lie us into war again without compunction.

Both parties' candidates exaggerate or spin, but voters ought to know the difference between that and out and out lying. If they cannot distinguish between the two they ought not vote!

McCain and Palin have made lying into an art form. The bridge-to-no-where and earmarks are no exception. Neither McCain's healthcare plan nor his claims to being a maverick are exceptions either.

Sadly the biggest lie of all, however, is the lie American voters are telling themselves they want change, but when it comes down to party affiliation loyalty versus real solutions how are they going to vote? If they really want change voting the same party into power expecting different results is insane. The GOP have held that mantle for 4 decades.

McCain, who has been entrenched in Washington for 26 years, and his running mate, who is embroiled in an ethics investigation pulling Cheneyesque tactics, expect us to believe they will shake things up in Washington insults our intelligence.

I trust Obama; he does not lie. In contrast McCain does, even after his statements have been debunked continues to anyhow. That is why Iam voting for Obama.

Furthermore Obama offers solutions. McCain offers more of the same.

If the electorate really wants a change vote for the guy who promises to be the President of the "United" States: Obama.

Posted by: serena1313 | September 12, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

serena1313 - I appreciate your opinion, however I disagree with you in that Obama offers solutions. All he has offered are feel good sound bites, with no real substance. What kind of change does he want? Offering health care that will cost $50 - $65 billion?

He wants to implement an additional payroll tax system to help Social Security... Having citizens and companies pay more taxes to a program that mathmatically will not work.

Both candidates want to increase the size of the Government, which is the big issue that kills the economy. Bob Barr wants toreduce the size of the Federal Government, turning control of State level matters back over to the states themselves. Thereby helping the economy and increasing the value of the dollar.

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

serena1313 - One more thing, Obama sponsored a Bill last year (I posted this earlier) that wants the US to pay hundreds of Billions (and could actually grow to Trillions) of dollars to Africa, along with the rest of the G8 countries (G8 at the time of the Bill) which now may be dropped to G7 and will only increase the amount of funds that the US will put into the offering plate.

A link to that bill is here, check out paragraph (9):

If this happens, our taxes are nothign now compared to what they will be, and the national deficit will do nothing but get bigger and bigger.

I ask that you go to the web site and check it out. I go by the same ID on there as I do here.

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Brian apparently you have not read Obama's detailed policies. Go to his web site.

Like Ron Paul, Bob Barr has a lot to offer to the discussion, but this year -- like all other years -- voters are not interested in electing an independent.

First of all too much is at stake. And when the press refuses to include Barr and McKinley in their polling (which explains why Ron Paul fell off the radar per se, but not his loyal followers) muchless write anything about them how do you expect Barr or any of the others to win?

I realize you believe in Barr, but can we afford to chance another 4 years of the same only on steroids? That is what the McCain/Palin offer.

Moreover if per chance Barr did win how much do you think he could realistically accomplish?

Posted by: serena1313 | September 12, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Brian S, I appreciate your opinion. I disagree with you though about Bob Barr. He doesn't have a chance in the world to win this election. And not just because he lacks name recognition. He was a supporter of the Patriot Act and authored the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal rights, which collectively undermine his attempt to label himself as a libertarian more than just a bit. He also led impeachment of President Clinton, a monstrous distraction for the nation and a colossal waste of time for Congress.

I ask you instead to vote for the candidate who most represents change, who is least likely to continue to support the failed policies of the Republicans who controlled congress and the white house for the last 8 years.

Posted by: noBob | September 12, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

nobob, serena1313 - This is awesome, I'm actually able to have a discussion with posters that are willing to actually discuss instead of just rant and rave a Party Line.

I understand that you feel that Bob wont be able to win the election because, as you stated serena, the press isnt covering him, they are so focused on McCain and Obama and their he said/he said rhetoric. McCain has been very vocal about being willing to use force and mentions the possibility of staying in Iraq for another 50 or 100 years (not that he has the power for that) but he approaches it as if he telling someone what a football score is. Not to mention says repeatedly, that there will be more wars and almost sounds like he WANTS them.

As far as Obama is concerned, he is leaning more toward a Socialist candidate than anything else. Proposing a $10 Billion fund to help prevent foreclosures? I'm sorry, but when someone signs a contract to buy a house, they are responsible for that. If they cant afford to pay for the house, they lose the house. Why should the Govt step in and rescue them with taxpayer money? Before anyone says anything, I felt the same way about this Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac fiasco. Now the Auto industry is starting to ask for a handout. I forgot what year it was, but a long time ago (yes, before Bush, I think it was possibly Clinton's watch, but I could be wrong) there was a huge airline bailout. If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was American or Delta. These sorts of things have GOT to stop. Although I do agree with Obama in that there should be better disclosure wehn it comes to credit cards and loan companies.

He also wants to expand the size of the government by adding yet another branch for intelligence gathering in the US, thats what the Dept of Homeland Security was for.

The government has gotten way too big and needs to be reduced. I'm not saying that Bob can do it in a year, but each little step that is taken is a step in the right direction. Now dont get me wrong, he does have some good ideas, but the plans that Obama has in mind, there is no way to pay for without stretching each and every American even thinner on income.

Did you look at that bill?

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention, am not a card carrying Libertarian and do not believe in following any candidate because of their party, for no political party is able to meet/match every member's preferences of that party. I believe in looking at the person running for the office. The only candidate in the presidential race that is worth my efforts is Bob Barr.

The people of the United States need to stop looking at this party or that party and look at the people that they are electing. Voting a 'straight ticket' is the lazy and uninformed way to do things.

There should be more accessability to the election process, not politically controlled media coverage to only show the candidates that are 'popular' because of the party they are associated with.

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

If your party does not agree with these four statements, you should not be voting for them...

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Posted by: mike | September 12, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

And so, some wonder why people supposedly concerned with issues are becoming preoccupied [specifically] with the semantics of Lipstickgate. Answer: it isn't about Lipstickgate. It's about people being pushed to the brink by watching grown adults going at each other like grade schoolers at recess during America's cliffhanger of disaster. And it appears that the chief agitator in this particular direction is John McCain.

He is so two-faced. He'll go to any biker rally, alley bar, redneck town hall and jump in the sewer, and then he'll "clean up" for a moment for things like Thursday night's Service Forum, as if he wasn't busy telling dirty lies the night before, and this encourages the media to be squeamish about calling his crap what it is.

It is apt to regard Palin as a questionable distraction; except that the fundamentally irritating thing about the Bush Administration since 2001 has been his neverending army of "talk to the hand" press secretaries who made sure Bush and Cheney never needed to have a discussion with the American people about anything while pretending to be their devoted servants. From where I'm standing, Palin represents even more of that. She won't do anything in office, but she will make sure that her presence alone allows for that type of contempt for millions of Americans' right to know to continue. Except it will be just that much more maddening because she will save herself much of Dana Perino and Tony Snow's prior belligerence simply by saying "I'm too cute and female to be asked these questions." People will be throwing things at their TV for four years. No, I'm not interested in any more Republican administrations which think everything is top secret. I swear, if they win, the next time election season rolls around, Americans won't even be entitled to knowing what the FULL NAMES of the Republican candidates are let alone anything. Enough of this. Get these shams off the set.

Posted by: A.J. | September 12, 2008 5:09 AM | Report abuse

"To be able to get the Hillary votes for a woman whose views are so far off of Hillary's, that is a great achievement.
Either that or women in America are easily duped or truly dont care about politics and only gender. At this point it appears to be both."

One thing I think people haven't considered (especially since it is no longer appropriate to do so -- Hillary has redeemed herself) is that Hillary opened the door to this type of trickery from John McCain. From the moment Hillary became desperate enough to backstab a fellow Democrat in fear that her "lock-in" would fall apart, the Republicans have been closely watching the Democratic race to figure out how to exploit her carelessness to their advantage in the fall season.

They were hoping Hillary would be a player somehow in the fall, so they could either be on the ready with hours of footage of her sliming Obama and almost elevating John McCain over him to destroy the credibility of the Democratic ticket more easily, or; exhume the corpse of the scandalized 90s Clinton past to destroy the credibility of the Democratic ticket more easily.

Since she wasn't a player, the Republicans were begrudgingly forced to actually think out a counter-strategy only loosely based on the results of the Democratic primary. Thinking hurts their brains. So no wonder Palin comes out of nowhere as if determined in the late hours of an evening of heavy drinking.

But the fact is, Hillary had a knack for constantly diverting from the issues, or otherwise framing them in entirely narrow ways to keep attention away from the inconsistencies that existed between her own Washington relationships and the message she was selling, while making up the shortfall with an "in your face" polarizing personality. And the purity of her stances on issues always took a backseat to emotional, spurious-reasoning politics, when compared with Obama. Palin ended up being the Republican version of this, and thus, much, much worse. So while it is clear that even a sleazier Hillary had better underlying principles than Sarah Palin, Hillary's particular cult of personality was distinctly appealing primarily to low-information voters who based their opinion of her on very superficial traits and keynotes, not the purity of the speaker, and that base did not prioritize concentration on critical matters over surface appearances. Obama succeeded in getting paid attention-to on the "blitz" end of the political scale, but only in hopes that his total abandonment of lobbyists and double-agent liberalism would also be paid attention-to even more closely.

This, lest we forget, is the reason Obama prevailed in the election. No, he did not come out and say that Hillary was too deeply in bed with Washington to do more than a half-a** job reforming the system (an act of restraint that was also part of his balanced attitude toward campaigning), but this is what his supporters knew. His supporters were greatly concerned that the legacy of Democrats having things thrown back in their face by Republicans to create a disingenuous, "Clinton did it too!" underside to the high and mighty Democratic opposition would be ripe for the Republicans in a Hillary nomination, and they were right. Republicans might not have been reduced to seeing whether they could lie outright in the fall had Hillary been the ticket, because of all of the ways in which the Clintons could be shown as sampling some of the Republican party's propensity for strange bedfellows. With Obama, 19 months into an election cycle, they're still having to obsess over minute matters like Tony Rezko because there's not enough real dirt on him to keep him constantly worried about what might come out about him next.

Fortunately, Hillary has come to her senses enough to realize fighting hard and authentically on Obama's behalf is the only way to salvage as much of her orphaned Democratic voting base as she can. But in the meantime, Republicans still (misguidedly) saw a voter "surplus" in her handful of die-hard, scorned supporters, and this is one of the many clever reasons behind the Palin pick. Without Hillary going out of her way to make her voter base falsely feel demographically "disenfranchised" by being on the losing end of a level fight, the opportunity with Palin never would have existed for the Republicans, or occurred to them. The "damsel in distress" "sexism victim" card Palin is playing is exactly the one Hillary was using when she couldn't outwit Obama, and the Republicans were already able to see Democrats falling for it. In a way, it becomes important to see just how many people on the Democratic aisle could fall prey to hypocrisy just as easily. Except, it was a containable matter. Anytime it involves a Republican, it becomes scary and deadly.

Posted by: A.J. | September 12, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Nothing is sacred, why should truth be any different?

Posted by: Olive | September 12, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

This country needs a revolution - a bottom up revolution. Or we will be the poorest country in the world in all respects very soon. Rest of the world laughs at us. We cannot provide descent healthcare to every citizen - SHAME ON US(A). Wake up folks or we all will be begging on the streets while the shameless rich republicans are enjoying life on their private islands. WAKE UP AND VOTE DEMOCRAT. Obama is our last hope.

Posted by: Mr. Revolution | September 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Mr Revolution

I agree that this country is going to be the poorest country on the face of the earty, if either McCain or Obama win the election. I've been disenfranchised with the 2 party system for decades (after Ronald Reagan). The one person that I believe can and will start making a change to this country is Bob Barr, it might not be an immediate change, but one must start with small steps before you can run. The policies of both of the big candidates will drive this country deeper in debt. McCain with his willingness to have more wars and his joking about Bomb, bomb, Iran. Then there is Obama with his willingness to be the Welfare supporter for the entire continent of Africa. If you dont believe this, follow this link to the bill that he sponsored along with Biden.

I understand that Barr isnt a 'big name' candidate, because thats because most of the country hasnt heard from him, the 'Big 2' candidates are getting all the coverage and everybody thinks that this is a race between 2 parties. We the People need to take back this country from those parties and return it to the People.

Voting for the lesser of 2 Evils is still voting for Evil. Bob Barr is the only voice talking about REAL change with a plan to implement it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

was so busy typing forgot to enter the in the Name box for the above comment for REAL change

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Visit the following website to watch a very informative Sarah Palin video:

Posted by: Randy S | September 12, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Every time McCain used the phrase, the audience laughted/giggled too. That's why people continue to use that phrase, it's succinct, effective, and it's funny. They laughed when Obama said it but that doesn't mean they were thinking of Palin. Besides, it was her prerogative to compare herself to a dog. No one else did that, she did it to herself. Obama was clearly referring to the faux veneer of change that the McCain campaign is trying to sell. Lipstick on a pig is more than apt.

Posted by: worriedmom | September 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

worriedmom - If you look at the Obama and McCain plans, they are both covered in a faux veneer.

Obama's feel good speeches have no substance. There is no way to finance the changes he has in mind without further crippling the economy and the US citizens that pay taxes.

McCain wants to make government even bigger, costingmore tax dollars to do so, not to mention the country(ies) that he has set inmind to conduct the next 'Freedom Campaign' involving the US Military. Dont get me wrong, I definitely believe in a strong military, but for US protection, not to be the premier Global Policemen.

Bob Barr wants to decrease the size of the government, cut back on that same governments spying on its citizens and give the each State control of their own matters.

I invite you to check out

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: political view | September 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: GOD | September 12, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The more Dems. and the lib media slime and put down Palin, the more they're driving undecideds like me to vote Rep.

Posted by: Cindy D | September 12, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Cindy - I'm not sliming anyone here, am just focused on the issues, the BIG one with me is the economy. Obama has no feasible plan to get the country out of debt. McCain wants to increase the size of the government and is not opposed to leaving our mlitary in Iraq.

Sure Obama has said that he wants to do this and that, but wiht the bill he sponsored with Biden, and with wanting to do his healthcare plan, there is no way that he can pay for it without raising taxes even more. Have you read the bill that he sponsored to end global poverty?

McCain is proposing to fund the Afghan army, with US tax dollars. In addition to conducting a war on drugs basically IN Afghanastan and work on rebuilding their infrastructure.... again, with US taxpayer money. McCain said the other day that the United States Government should get back on its feet and start creating jobs, the United States Government isnt supposed to create jobs. That is how it got so big in the first place.

I dont know about you, but I want to get the US infrastructure built up. We have to stop rebuilding the world and sending our military to act as Global Police Officers, and start paying off these debts that we've racked up in the process of doing that over the past 7 years. Bob Barr wants to reduce the size of the government, does NOT want to spend billions or trillions of dollars to rebuild other countries, and put individual states back in charge of their own issues so that the Fed wont have to mess with it. Thats not what it was intended for.

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Cindy -
I'm going to invite you to check out the web site. I am not a Libertarian, but I do back Bob. I am one of the hundreds of thousands that was undecided as well, and was about to sit this one out too, until I heard him on the issues.

Posted by: Brian S | September 12, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Getting us out of Iraq (whose gov't supports Obama's plan) and revoking the tax cuts for the rich (that Bush initiated and McCain supports) will save trillions. Indirectly, so will more comprehensive health care, a problem that costs the U.S. over 2 trillion/year, and for which Obama has a plan.

It's great that McCain is a war hero and that Sarah Palin has 5 kids, but that ain't going to solve this country's problems. And all the lying that Kinsley refers to is just a distraction from that fact.

Vote for Obama.

Posted by: soccerplayer | September 13, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

soccerplayer -

I'm wondering why you would want to take more money from people that have earned it legally? There should be a flat tax for everyone. I'm surprised that youre not angry or even acknowledging the bill that Obama has sponsored. We should take care of the USA and get back on our feet. Though I do believe in sending aid in times of crisis etc, but not because of poverty. In order to help someone out, you have to be able to help yourself first.

Posted by: Brian S | September 13, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

No friggin' Obama!

No friggin' McCain!


Posted by: No Party Libertarian | September 13, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse


I'm not a Libertarian, even though I share alot of the same beliefs and principles. Ive stated before that I was going to sit this election out because I was so sick of watching these 2 Socialists in the guise of Republicans and Democrats, fight each other on who is going to be the one to rip this country to shreds. One of them wants to be able to put some notches on his bedpost for winning wars, the other one wants to get the rest of the entire globe out of poverty, by driving the US into poverty.

When I saw a clip on Bob barr, I did some research on him and like what he said, and is saying. He has a plan to fix things, and no, it wont be an easy or quick fix. It's going to take years, maybe even decades to fix the damage that has been done since Reagan left Office. But you must walk before you can run. If people keep thinking that he has no chance and vote for McCain or Obama because 'one of them is going to win and I vote for the lesser evil', then true Democracy has lost. I refuse to believe that. That, sir, is the exact reason that I keep coming on here and many other blog sites to get the word out.

I would like to invite you to visit and look at the issues yourself. I'm not like alot of Party Puppets and try to convince anybody of something because of my argument or my points. I'm not a public speaker and if someone can be swayed to vote for Bob just because of something that I have said, that person hasnt thought about it. My goal here, is to just raise a point that there IS someone that wants REAL change in the United States and has a plan to get us there. You may not agree with one or two of them, but you can make a choice for yourself. I regularly put comments on reply strings there and use the same name as I do here. Feel free to ask me anything and if I dont know the answer, I can find someone that does.

Thank you...

Posted by: Brian S | September 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Vote for me! I'll return everybody's taxes! That's the only issue that matters, and it will surely fix all the country's problems!

And thanks, Brian, for for trying to raise awareness of my campaign by referring to people who have raised legitimate points here as "Party Puppets". That's a really persuasive argument. As is ignoring those points and repeating your single-minded mantra ad nauseum.

Posted by: Bob B. | September 14, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Interesting point of view. 'ad nauseum', about actual issues. I try to keep people informed about actual issues. Yet the people that were spouting off about lipstick, pigs etc... did think that they were making sense?

I never said that he would return everybody's taxes. I stated that he is trying to reduce the size of the Government which has gotten way too big, way too powerful and in everybody's business. If either McCain or Obama are elected, that 800 pound gorilla that no-one wants to discuss, will just get bigger and bigger. This should not be a nation of welfare, government bailouts of failed companies nor should we be the Global Policemen in that we send our military might all over the planet to keep the peace.

I havent seen a legitimate point made on this site. I have rather, seen people quoting speech statements, but the numbers will not add up.

How do you feel about the Missile Defense Shield in Poland, or the conflict last month in Georgia?

Posted by: Brian S | September 14, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse


Here's a plan for you and you might check out Waybe Allan Roots previous campaign for presidents plan for where I got this. Too me it makes sense.

First thing that people need to realize is that revoking the tax cuts on the rich isnt necessarily going to help the situation with the lower class since the rich are most commonly known as the boss that sign our paychecks. We should be supporting a no income tax law for all working class reguardless of income and restructurs the business tax so that we are actually competitive in the world market place. That is a Libertarian view

The Libertarians want to get out of Iraq as well and if we were allowed by the two party system to express our views to foreign leaders, we would be a global favorite for our stants on the UN and NATO, both of wich we feel are unecessary and the US should not be members of.

Health care is obviously is big problem for most people but if you want an example of how universal health care works, take a look at Canada where the waiting list is out of control for simple procedures. Think about this for one second, get the federal government out of the health care industry, thus de regulating and removing restrictions of the health care system. One restriction is the insurance industry. I live in Michigan, so if I wanted to buy health insurance for me and my family I would be forced to get it from a Michigan INS company. By simply erasing the boundry lines, I would then be able to shop my insurance policy around the country and look for the best plan that fits my needs. This will create what I like to call a "Market" and in a merket you have competition, with competition you have lower prices. In markets you create new businesses and new JOBS. More jobs means less unemployment and less poverty. How would universal health care do that. Here is another thing on that subject you need to think long and hard about. People's greedyness always effects the people around them. For instance, I have health insurance for me and my family, so do I get to choose weather or not I pay the tax hike to pay for a health care system I dont need and will NEVER use. When a group of people get greedy for handouts they screw over the mass of people who dont need it. They say there are 2 million people with out health insurance, that is .6% of the US population that is going to fist the 99.4% of the population. Going with the above plan will make sure that doesnt happen and collectively make health care way more affordable for everyone.

Now here are some things that Obama made to sound good but could be disasterous to everyone....The Carbon Tax that will go along with the thousand dollar refund he promices. Sure the thousand dollars would be nice but when he inposes the tax hike on the oil companies who is going to get pounished for the added cost...US! they will immediatley trickle the cost of the tax to it's consumers and personally I don't need more tax on energy. He wants to double the Capital Gains tax, if you double the capital gains tax you reduce profits which also hurts the economy namely because the people who hold stocks are mostly middle class people saving for their retirements or just making a living playing the markets, thats a goods way to screw them over hard. Then you have the federal income tax hike for thoise making over 32K per year, the 55% estate tax he proposes, the over 35% dividends tax, the social security tax hike, medicare tax hike, all of which get paid for by ALL working class, not just the rich.

read and learn

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Partisan supporters will always start out "The reason the left-wing/right-wingers lie is ..."
Fairly typical of politics these days, the speck in our opponent's eye gets all of our attention to our own detriment. The fact is that both sides use spin, lies, and so-called "stealth" tactics to get across a message - there are no non-pigs in this campaign, to put it mildly.
Unfortunately the messages being fostered from across the policital spectrum are that "the voters are too stupid to deal with facts, so we'll serve them up a steady diet of political babytalk to keep them interested." All of this while one or the other party robs us blind, depends only on whose turn it is.
Shame on the American public for putting up with this nonsense. In this age of ultra-sophisticated media campaigns we must use our ability to sense crap messages and filter them out, all while seeking the truth. (yes, it is a tall order for most voters, but maybe SOME will figure it out)
It is said we should not slay the messengers, but if all they bring is garbage news, spin and spew, with no real facts or truth, they ought to be slain. Twice when we know they are being paid to deliver such drivel.(no, not literally. Don't be such a knee-jerk jerk)
If our political leaders, pundits, supporters and voters ever grow up, the United States will indeed be a power to be reckoned with. Until then, we're being nervously laughed at and worried over all over the world.

Posted by: Porzitsku | September 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Porzitsku and others following the Obama/McCain figureheads.

There IS one candidate that isnt running smear, talking about pigs/lipstick, or just chanting 'Yes, We Can' with no mentioned plan for implementing that change. Both of the candidates listed above, will take this country further in debt with socialized medical care/insurance coverage/ more conflicts that we have no business in (Iraq), not to mention all the talk about going to Georgia and defending them. Georgia used military force against South Ossetia on the border of Russia. We invaded to Iraq under false pretenses and are still there.

I invite you to check out the website and look at his issues for yourself. I am not here to try and convince anybody to change their mind, merely to open an avenue to educate on another option. Instead of just going back and forth to 2 failed methods of running this country.

Posted by: Brian S | September 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company